Quote:I respectfully disagree. In fact I couldn't disagree more. If a person actively seeks public attention, and actively seeks the public spotlight, and actively seeks a position, or a mantle, he must all times be far more responsible and far more accountable as that public figure, and to a far higher standard than is my next door neighbor Bubba requested to be, especially if to be taken seriously in arenas such as academia and/or public office. Many parents and social advocates would even go so far as to say this includes showbiz. If your position of "so what" is so, then "so what" to public office as a public figure, "so what" to science as regards what a scientist may have "speculated" or argued for as regards swine flu and the inoculations you don't really need that he said you did, and "so what" to the economists who may cause a run on banks or allow a paltry 700 billion dollars to go missing, or "so what" as to what any academic may claim as an interpretation to a material, particularly and especially if he holds himself out as an authority on the material. It was an over statement I know, and I get your point, but "so what" is the antithesis of and to everything, and is the polar opposite of passion, life, growth, study, and concern, whether it is to social conscience, or to political, environmental, or spiritual pursuits. "So what" is in fact as lethargic as it is dangerous for being so.
Fair enough, perhaps I overstated the point based upon my conviction that David's, as well as my, transgressions are relatively minor (the cosmic equivalent of parking tickets as opposed to mass murder, if you will). That said, I must now join the camp of those that call upon you to "show me the details" and I will wholeheartedly participate in the discussion. In the mean time, I am perfectly happy to forgive David the transgressions I have seen, because, to me at least, they are equivalent to missing a few notes, or on occasion rearranging a measure, in an overall harmonious interpretation of one of my favorite symphonies.
Quote:To extend the point, what if such meticulous notes and efforts had not been made by Carla, Jim, Don, and the entire L/L group to preserve and precisely get the information right. What if only slight misstatements or notes had slipped in here and there, innocuous, innocent, sloppy, or otherwise. Might this have changed profoundly the entire context of the LOO, even if only slightly? Aren't we all as true students honor-bound and obligated to "recuse" ourselves as authority, or as scholars, as if though one holds more knowledge than another on something one can not hold more on than the other (especially when interpreting). Aren't we all but simple students and pilgrims learning? As such, are we not also honor bound to protect the public from our own misinterpretations as much as we are from those claiming any certain authority or scholarly knowledge as if "more than" when in fact sometimes perhaps more off than most for it?
I am absolutely convinced that mistakes did slip by in spite of the best efforts of the trio plus Ra. But, following my musical analogy, here again I think there is not sufficient distortion of the original score to affect in any significant way the underlying musical theme, plot or overall experience of the symphony. So no, I do not think that it would have (or did) "change the entire context profoundly".
The concern I have about picking apart another's interpretation of the Law of One, is that I believe that each of us sees in the works, precisely what our mind/body/spirit complex needs at the time we are considering it, and I am loath to risk impinging upon another's free will. By extension, I think that people see in an interpretation of TLOO, what they need at the time they read it. The story changes if someone asks for our opinion about a passage or an interpretation thereof (and there are many such ambiguous passages that I would love to discuss). But to hold ourselves up as the "policemen", if you will, for the Law of One seems both presumptuous and dangerous.
Still, given his public presence, as I said earlier, I would be willing to entertain a scholarly consideration of any alleged misstatements of David's that anyone would care to bring forward. I might even be persuaded to point out a few that I have noted over the years, some of which, for example, significantly undermine (at least in my opinion) David's belief in the "instantaneous versus the gradual" migration into 4D. But, for what it's worth, I do not see the misinterpretations of the Law of One that I feel exist in that treatise as being particularly important regarding the TLOO, because I feel that any such interpretation aimed at answering transitory questions are inherently error prone and will always be wrong.
Thank you for your continued waving of the banner of truth, dear Q. I do support you in this endeavor, in spite of how I may sound to be somewhat at odds with you.
As always, your humble servant,
3D Sunset