David Wilcock

[Quantum]

To clarify I meant the word attack not as a violent attack but an intellectual attack. It's probably an over statement. I have remnants of my original language in English...And I understood and understand clearly that you were not undivided, as in uncritically opposed, you're critically opposed meaning that you thought about it and give the man credit where you think it's due and not where you think it's not due.

Hello Ali Q. Thank you for a most respectful and intelligent reply. Language is indeed a most peculiar if not formidable means of communication. But alas, it is all we have to rely on for the moment. As a Euro-American I can more than appreciate and well understand your challenge my friend. No apologies required with this bit of shared understanding. All is well.

..my personal understanding is that groups in groups is an appropriate description of the hierarchy of nature. If we were talking about human beings his statement would be laughable. But we're not... Ra is a social memory complex. Belonging to a group. I don't think this is an easy concept to grasp. Speculating on how this works will always result in conflicting opinions. And since it's above 3d in nature it might not even be fully comprehensible from a 3d perspective. Meaning that what we understand as Ra is merely an approximation of what he is. Egyptians called him God. That was also merely an approximation.

The larger point was that his point initially was that he channeled Ra, i.e the same Ra. This was more than "presumably understood" as much as stated as the same Ra as the Ra of the LOO. Invoking the name of Ra while speaking about Ra while claiming authority on Ra while all at once channeling in the same name as Ra, is cumbersome, complicated and confusing at best if not at least, on any level. Thats all. I questioned it then as much as I do now. Given the high and stringent requirements of the combined group of the L/L remaining as pure and "faithful to the message", comprised of Carla, Jim, Don and the L/L in general, and as being such a narrow band communication, and that this was referenced repeatedly over and over again by Ra, it was as academically suspicious then as it is now that this would have been possible by one single man vs a the group that was as "singularly dedicated and faithful to the message". With all this in mind, it's unlikely that any single person might be able to effectively channel Ra unless he were as likely to effectuate this very same stringent and narrow band communication requirement as was the case in and with the matrix that the L/L group seemed to emit. Either we accept the stringent requirement as fact or we do not. If we do not accept the requirements made so often by Ra, as to even the simple placement of a candlestick or a book as much as the integrity of the group, then we may accept his claims and reject Ra's, verses the seeming logic of winning the day to question his and accept Ra's.

2. He claims he is the reincarnation of Edgar Cayce. On reading many of his less than flattering posts as regards Edgar Cayce, these involving everything from what he claims are Cayce's co-dependency issues to his personal character, which further include the personnel that supported and surrounded this very famous healer and psychic, is it a small wonder that the A.R.E. (The Association for Research and Enlightenment, i.e. being the Cayce Foundation) refused to accept him as such? One may assume there were undoubtedly many more reasons as well that they refused to acknowledge his claims.

...I don't know about this either. I do know that connections between lives often exist and inspire the later living to do something.

You are in some senses of the word more in agreement with me here than not. I too do not know about this and therefore as a result question it as much as accept this as a truth. In the larger context you are correct in surmising that connections between lives exist to inspire others later. It is however not the point made. The point made is that much like the Ra claims specifically, he too claims specifically to be "The" reincarnation of Cayce in the flesh, not that Cayce merely inspired him. Thats all. And that moreover as evidence to this same present incarnation he offers physical resemblance to the man? I only respectfully question the credulity of accepting that one may be all things simultaneously so much so as to not only channel Ra, who speaks in contradiction to Ra (i.e. aliens as saviors during the Harvest - even if only on one single point), but then accept that one is also "the one and only Edgar Cayce" in the flesh. The first claim, even without the questions posed, is incredulous enough. The second claim compounded with the first makes it at the least all the more incredulous. The one redeeming factor to all this is that he claims to be a scholar. Thankfully as such he therefore as a result must be quite agreeable to the scrutiny that scholarly thought and debate require to any academic claim made.

I think it has to do with David's personal journey more than his service to earth. As such it might have been better to have kept this to himself. There is no benefit from it and it can only confuse.

Once again, we are in agreement. It confuses, this as suggested in my previous posts

3. Although I have read on the subject matter as regards the very questionable correlation of having certain present physical characteristics in this lifetime as compared to a past lifetime of a famous figure in history, as Wilcock does in great detail to himself as compared to Edgar Cayce, I do not pretend to understand this as 'scholarly' proof that he is Edgar Cayce in as much as being a white athletic male in this life would make for a rather peculiar if not bizarre fact were I to have been an obese African female in my last? Is one then to 'academically' assume that of the many multiple lifetimes an individual may have over the course of his spiritual sojourn that he/she more oft than not resembles himself/herself in most of these lifetimes? Offering this as grounds for a proof to a reincarnation seemingly limits the infinite profoundly, as much as it stretches credulity. It is neither scholarly, nor is it academic.

Actually I don't believe in past lives like this. But this point 3 is really an extension of point 2. To me everyone carries Cayce's soul. You linear past life believers must work out your differences among yourselves.

These are his his statements, not mine or yours, therefore we are not at liberty to reinterpret them. He does not feel as you do.

4. He is without question a prolific writer. I would acknowledge this openly, and furthermore commend him for it. He further without question is of service as regards making "The Law of One" a wider known subject matter, this through his many speaking engagements, talk radio spots, and his web posts. But, here comes the sticking point, in as much as the vast majority of his writings are those largely based on the works of others, and on information which is largely already out there. He unequivocally in a herculean manner tasks these works of others together by compiling and weaving them into a theme. But this is not original thought or material. This is simply the dissemination of previous information woven together of other writers works. True scholarly academia in any event "always" utilizes quotes, footnotes, and gives all due credit where credit is due, rather than compiling these notes together and 'sometimes' referring to them when convenient, verses at other times taking credit as though largely original, and then turning it into personal opining on those works no less.

I don't see your issue here. As far as I can see Wilcock references all his claims.

My apologies for not being more clear. Allow me to be more specific. He opines on certain references which are often no where made in the references of the LOO so as to sometimes seemingly stretch or bend these references, these as made in the case of the LOO with specificity.

4. He strongly advocates the position for those individuals, presumably being of a proper makeup, as candidates for "being raptured or rescued at an appointed time" by alien space brothers in their craft, which is tantamount to another "rapture scenario" by any other name, but which more importantly as a self professed scholar of "The Law of One" is no where mentioned whatsoever within the LOO. This "opinion" furthermore seems to entirely dispel the "quarantine" non-interference initiative 100% as specifically contained within the LOO as established by the Confederation? Alien spacecraft beaming people aboard as relates to the LOO, which is nowhere even so much as hinted at within the LOO, and this against the backdrop of the quarantine of the Confederation, all while simultaneously maintaining he is one of the foremost authorities on the LOO is at least minimally difficult to grasp as scholarly?

Basically I think you're saying here that a scholar should agree with the material he is a scholar in.. That's not true for the obvious reasons. I am a scholar in psychology. I still read up on it and study it long after my studies are done. But I still don't agree with all of it.

Thank you for this Ali. It opens up for the first time thus far a real and intellectual dialogue on what it means to be a scholar of a very specific study, such as the LOO, or the Dead Sea Scrolls for that matter. This is no small claim as has been suggested by another participant in his post that "anyone" may call himself a scholar. We may have a very basic first disagreement if you too believe this in any manner, given we seemingly agree in most other areas of what we are speaking to. A scholar who professes a certain authority, while yet claiming to channel this same source (as the truer authority), all while suggesting he seemingly as a scholar knows more than the average individual on this certain study, but then all at once disagrees with the very study he is an authority on and which he channels no less, may hardly be named as a credible scholar in support of his scholarly pursuit, as much a critic of it. This is confusing. There is a vast distinction between the two positions of advocating and furthering a particular study, verses being a critic of it. Attempting to have it both ways once again creates confusion. I may for example be a scholar of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Essenes. It would be futile for me to be their critic and be in dispute of anything that was written in them or by them, unless I were disputing them or impugning their authenticity. It would be opining as opposed to further studying and pursuing their intent. As you stated earlier, it creates confusion at the very least as opposed to clarity and further understanding which is the goal of a scholar.

Also that rapture by aliens idea, I don't see that in Davids work can you reference it? .... I think he's talking about the harvest Ra is also talking about. The contact with ET's will be after or during that. Not before as some kind of messianic figures. I don't see him making the claim that some white knight will come and whisk us away in his Ufo.

It would require an exhaustive search for me to direct you specifically to any one point made as opposed to speaking about them generally. They are there. You may search the archives, or perhaps others might assist by concurring or helping to reference. Perhaps Yosarrian who has made it a point to read everything he has written may assist, in as much as he agrees he said it. Yosarrian is however incorrect by stating he made these statements in the 90's. He made all of the 7 assertions far far more recently than the 90's. He made them all as recently as roughly in 2006. He presumably archives and documents all of his comments and posts. This aside however,thank you for making my larger point for me as regards this point specifically. It suggests that one may blur, stretch, or simply opine on, or innocently misinterpret the information, but then not be expected to be challenged for it by simply suggesting one is a scholar and therefor presumably correct.

David gets the negative greetings like we all get them. He's also criticized. I think he's not exaggerating by stating any of this. Did he really use it as a defense?

Yes he has and does. Again, I can not direct you specifically to such posts. Would that I could. Again same point as above. Perhaps others may add to your request better than I, or at least corroborate.

But you bring up another very profound and interesting point Ali Q. You are most insightful, engaging, and this as a result is proving to be much like a post I was hoping to receive. Suggesting that if one questions, as in an academic, intellectual, or scholarly sense, and then further suggesting that this is a "Negative Greeting", well, this profoundly kills any semblance of ever having any reasonable or intelligent discussion on anything...unless you concede that by now disagreeing with me you are sending me "Negative Greeting?" This is absurd if not preposterous, as much as if I do not believe in a certain legislated principle enacted by the sate I must now therefor be an enemy of the state. Surely we all know where this may lead.

I suggest that when Ra utilizes the term "Negative Greeting" that it was invoked more to mean a Negative energy sent from a higher plane and source to a lower plane such as ours, this by a higher more powerful entity(ies), and not to be misconstrued as by your next door neighbor. For heaven's sake. Yes, if we wish to be pedantic, one may indeed infer that a higher entity is manipulating your next door neighbor of a lower energy as a minion of his highnesse's higher STS energy, but I would suggest that this is a weenie higher entity engaged in something as frivolous as your dog that didn't poop in his yard that he wishes to have an argument over nonetheless, as much as all my or anyone else's words in "respectful" question to a certain assertion or points. Yes, we may engage in pedantics, and that it may mean anything, but this is exactly one of my points as relates to either blurring or over-reaching, both as a result minimizing the message of the LOO as a consequence so as to make it mean anything. What I can suggest is that when Ra used this term it was utilized in reference to Carla and the L/L group being greeted/attacked so as to prevent an extremely powerful message from being conveyed and disseminated to earth's population, and this directly by first party, and not a dog, or a neighbor. One may suggest that you cant send a boy to do a mans work, but that one may send a boy to do a boys work (i.e. said non- pooping dog vis-a-vis crazy angry small minded neighbor). I might be a sight more concerned about the real deal visiting me 1st party under my bed when the lights are out, or when I'm under trance, than the silly trite of day to day life's turmoils and conflicts, much less the rigors imposed by academic scrutiny. Let us be reasonable? Turning my candlestick or Bible in a certain direction would have no effect on my neighbor Bubba only in as much as Bubba is not as finely tuned as to understand my intent much less be affected by it. Sadly for Bubba, he's just too dense. But I love him anyway and might as well reach him on his level by offering him a beer and a feigned apology for the dog I don't even own. To expand on this concept as relates specifically to your suggestion that one may be a scholar of a particular subject but then also disagree with it, this logic by proxy would extend itself to a critic of the LOO claiming to be a scholar of the LOO while sending a Negative Greeting to the information of the LOO by simply disagreeing, or extending (over-reaching), or innocently blurring it? I don't subscribe to the fact that this is what was ever implied by Negative Greeting.

He doesn't go as far as to call anyone who does not share his opinion is negative elite.

Yes he has.

That whole "either with us or against us" principle doesn't ever work.

Again we most emphatically agree!

7. Mr Wilcock has furthermore on more than one occasion cast personal and disparaging remarks in his posts not only against Carla's Quo, but more importantly against Carla herself, and the L/L group itself, this as regards their personal character and their personal behavior?

Criticism doesn't make a person wrong. It just makes them dislikeable.

Well, perhaps the latter comment is true. The former opinion however is extremely questionable only in so much as if one is casting certain comments while simultaneously speaking to the very principles of STO and the LOO while claiming their authority of opinion over the others (Carla/L/L), well, it creates confusion again. I keep reading certain references being made as to two camps ala the Carla Camp vs the Wilcock Camp? I've never so much as even once seen a single comment from the former camp. One might be hard pressed to even find so much as a pebble much less a stone in their yard. See my point? It again creates confusion at best if not questionable authority at least. The standards and principles of the LOO are without question far more paramount than are the teachings, so much so that as an authority, scholar, or academic one should be cognizant of this, if not altogether congruent with it? I would hope there is absolutely no dispute in this? It otherwise creates confusion. There are no camps. There is no authority. There is no spoon (the Matrix). Ra is the singular authority on the LOO. He /they would in no small doubt even certainly dispute this.There is only the teaching made available as a book with principles. Simple. Period. I speak with a great degree of certainty and conviction, albeit my profound bias, when I respectfully offer that the LOO was not offered as a treatise to be made into a scholarly material reserved for academics as much as it is a candle in the dark offered for all, whatever station in life they may hold. It is my bias and I'm sticking with it...lol.

I'm personally not interested in picking sides. Like I said, I owe both of them big time.

You are strongly encouraged by this writer not to pick sides. That would infer a separation principle of STS as opposed to a unification principle of STO. We are attempting to speak academically to assertions only, not about individuals or sides.

Thank you Ali Q for a most well thought out post and response. I deeply appreciate your humility, as much as your intelligence, and most of all your willingness to engage in intelligent dialogue.

I return now to my continuing vacation in the aqua colored waters and gulf sands of the beach where all is still.

Peace my new friend,

Q