Did Ra address the reason for our existence?

[rva_jeremy]

I've found Don's quoestion on this:

13.12 Questioner: Could you tell me how intelligent infinity became, shall we say (I’m having difficulty with some of the language), how intelligent infinity became individualized from itself?

Ra: I am Ra. This is an appropriate question.

The intelligent infinity discerned a concept. This concept was discerned due to freedom of will of awareness. This concept was finity. This was the first and primal paradox or distortion of the Law of One. Thus the one intelligent infinity invested itself in an exploration of many-ness. Due to the infinite possibilities of intelligent infinity there is no ending to many-ness. The exploration, thus, is free to continue infinitely in an eternal present.

I don't know if finity is really something separated from infinity. Infinity is not a number but all numbers are part of infinity. I imagine the exploration of concept of finity as an endless counting to infinity.

I definitely don't think finity is separate from infinity in an ultimate sense.  I think this concept of "focus" is key for exactly that reason: the difference between experiencing unity and separation is a matter of perspective, what you choose to focus on.  Ergo this quote from Ra:

This distortion is not in any case necessary. It is chosen by each of you as an alternative to understanding the complete unity of thought which binds all things.

Ra, 1.7

Because we choose to have this separate experience, we choose to have a focus upon a subset of our totality, and that subset achieves manifestation as a function of the invented media called time and space.  This is the great mystery of awareness, which seems to wrap up within itself a subject/object dichotomy that makes Creation possible: one cannot be aware without positing a subject having awareness and an object of which the subject is aware.  However, this awareness in general, and the manner in which it manifests in the Creation in particular, is just one mode of possibility.  

I heartily agree with Elros that this seems to be a matter of perspective and not essence. Duality is a mental model we employ to make sense of this within the limits of our understanding, but the thing we are attempting to model is much richer than the model conveys (although I will say that duality seems to recur throughout the Creation, across densities and experiences, but this could be merely a consequence of our limited perspective).  This is one way of understanding why the intellect, the tool designed for reasoning about a space/time, is so ill equipped for reasoning about greater reality or even time/space.  There's nothing wrong with the model of duality as long as one avoids the error of reducing one's entire horizon to only that which conforms which the model.