Unity/Infinity/One

[anagogy]

Aha I do not suggest dogma, by any means, but I also would not purport to suggest I know what people intend behind their words. Of course, I conjecture as do you and hypothesize intent. I honestly am not sure it would make a difference even if one of us is right! Aha

What is the difference between "purporting to suggest what people intend behind their words" and "conjecturing and hypothesizing intent"? They are the pretty much the same thing from my perspective.

The part I put in bold is where I think I crossed terms over.

It is confusing how in one they say "unity has a potential and kinetic" and then also say "there is no difference, potential or kinetic, in unity", which means they are equating them as the same things, yet still using different words to talk about them. They also refer to the kinetic as intelligent energy, and the potential as intelligent infinity. Bit of word salad going on there I think.

I've always interpreted it to mean that the difference between potential and kinetic is only apparent, and valid, from the vantage point of the kinetic (illusion).

They also say "the basic rhythms of intelligent infinity are totally without distortion of any kind", but doesn't intelligent infinity include the first three distortions at least, if not all? Is a 'rhythm' therefore also not any kind of distortion? Some confusing terminology.

Perhaps I need to contemplate what they really mean by "distortion".

Since they are distortions, I would assume by definition they would not be included in the distortion-less state of oneness. So here we have a great example of them referencing the state before distortions (i.e. infinity) and still calling it "intelligent".

A distortion, or illusion, only occurs when what you are looking at is not completely accurate or true to how it "really is". But it sounds like how it "really is" is still *intelligent* which, to my mind, is pretty much an open shut case, but I'm sure you probably still don't see it that way. Oh well.