06-04-2016, 11:15 PM
I corresponded with Sean in emails and he gave me a background story of this post, which stemmed from the inconsistency Don made in 70.6 when quoting Ra's response in 69.11:
69.11: Ra:...the path back revolves, firstly, about the higher self’s reluctance to enter negative space/time...
70.6: Don:...the path back [...] revolves, firstly, about the higher self’s reluctance to enter negative time/space...
The inconsistency above set off discussions within L/L community a few months ago on revisiting the reference of "time/space" in 70.6 and 70.7, leading to Sean's post in Apr.
I must say I applaud the tenacity shown in this pursuit.
I discussed with Sean my thought on this query, and found we're both on the same page. So upon Sean's suggestion, I'm copying my thought here:
One possible cause for confusion could be Ra answers 69.11 (where the Wanderer is the subject of the query and he is already placed in negative t/s) in a different context compared to its answer in 70.7 (where Ra seems not to be referring to the Wanderer subject in 69.11 already in negative t/s, but instead makes a general comment that the Higher Self is reluctant to allow any mind/body/spirit complex - not the said Wanderer - to enter negative t/s)
The significance of this difference in context is that:
* in 69.11 what necessarily follows is the question: when will the Higher Self let the Wanderer incarnate in s/t
* in 70.7, since the Higher Self will not (or will be reluctant to) move any of its mind/body/spirit complex into negative t/s, negative s/t does not even have to come into picture
That's why I find the existing response from Ra in 70.7 acceptable given the context above.
69.11: Ra:...the path back revolves, firstly, about the higher self’s reluctance to enter negative space/time...
70.6: Don:...the path back [...] revolves, firstly, about the higher self’s reluctance to enter negative time/space...
The inconsistency above set off discussions within L/L community a few months ago on revisiting the reference of "time/space" in 70.6 and 70.7, leading to Sean's post in Apr.
I must say I applaud the tenacity shown in this pursuit.
(06-02-2016, 05:47 PM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: Do you believe that in Ra's response in 70.7, when they say "time/space," they are actually referring to time/space, or are they intending to mean space/time
I discussed with Sean my thought on this query, and found we're both on the same page. So upon Sean's suggestion, I'm copying my thought here:
One possible cause for confusion could be Ra answers 69.11 (where the Wanderer is the subject of the query and he is already placed in negative t/s) in a different context compared to its answer in 70.7 (where Ra seems not to be referring to the Wanderer subject in 69.11 already in negative t/s, but instead makes a general comment that the Higher Self is reluctant to allow any mind/body/spirit complex - not the said Wanderer - to enter negative t/s)
The significance of this difference in context is that:
* in 69.11 what necessarily follows is the question: when will the Higher Self let the Wanderer incarnate in s/t
* in 70.7, since the Higher Self will not (or will be reluctant to) move any of its mind/body/spirit complex into negative t/s, negative s/t does not even have to come into picture
That's why I find the existing response from Ra in 70.7 acceptable given the context above.
Quote:70.7 - Ra: The Higher Self is reluctant to allow its mind/body/spirit complex to enter negative time/space for the same basic reason an entity of your societal complex would be reluctant to enter a prison.