Does anyone here have psychic/PSI-abilites?

[Patrick]

What I mean by building a model of understanding for ourselves is that while we are veiled everything is subjective.  Truth is subjective.  Objectivity is not accessible.  Someone could have temporary access to Objectivity while having an experience, like an NDE, but when they are back with us behind the veil they cannot really explain what they experienced.  They keep saying that there are no words or that the words are not really touching it.

Even our scientists are getting there now.  They are realizing that our brains cannot experience reality.  We can only build a model of reality that will always be subjective.  What I am saying is going one step further, where each of us builds our own model of reality.  Everything is dependent on our point of view and this remains for any source of information.

“According to the idea of model-dependent realism … our brains interpret the input from our sensory organs by making a model of the outside world. We form mental concepts of our home, trees, other people, the electricity that flows from wall sockets, atoms, molecules, and other universes. These mental concepts are the only reality we can know. There is no model-independent test of reality. It follows that a well-constructed model creates a reality of its own.”
...
In the following, Hawking expresses what model-dependent realism is in a strong and clear manner:

“There is no picture- or theory-independent concept of reality. Instead we will adopt a view that we will call model-dependent realism: the idea that a physical theory or world picture is a model (generally of a mathematical nature) and a set of rules that connect the elements of the model to observations. This provides a framework with which to interpret modern science.”
...
Why did Stephen Hawking use the word “realism” to characterise his position?

At an intuitive level, model-dependent realism (MDR) appears to be an anti-realist position, rather than a realist one. After all, if one is stressing models, theories and “mental concepts” (see later section), then isn’t that also to stress some kind of anti-realist position? Perhaps the wording doesn’t matter.

-------

You seem to believe that the model you have built for yourself could be somehow factual and so would automatically apply to others.  Well the model I built for myself from the Ra Material says that; there is simply no such thing in 3D space/time.

It's not a model I built for myself. As I may have mentioned here or elsewhere, it is direct channeling. Meaning, the same method the group of 3 did to channel iamraw's collective, is being done in current modern day by individual channelers linking to their higher self or other densities/realms. If it is impossible to channel high density information, then you have also directly negated or rejected the Law of One material this forum is based around.

My take on this is that it is absolutely impossible to really understand higher concepts while incarnated in 3D.  Thinking that we, while here, can somehow get meaningful information that is so "true" that it comes from higher than Ra in 6D is just deluding ourselves.  Concepts that Ra cannot understand yet are simply impossible to understand while veiled here.

Since we do not have access to actual "truths", each of us can only create a model of understanding for ourselves from what Ra (and other sources) were able to transmit.

What I understood from Ra is that we even have to realize that we cannot build such a universal framework while in 3D.  This in order to demonstrate that we no longer need 3D and are then ready for 4D work.  Once you really understand that you cannot truly understand while here is when you realize you're done with 3D.  And once in 4D there we can start accessing the "real" universal framework.

I don't see much disagreement between your position and mine. To backtrack and reclarify, I was mostly addressing Aso's point here, which I liked but did not entirely agree with.

There is a big trap which needs to be kept in mind. And it becomes very obvious as soon as a little logic is applied.

The messages of various well-known people who are prominently attacked do not add up, logically. Put it all together and you end up with a pile of contradictions. This shows that it cannot all, it cannot even mostly, be the truth. Some of it can, but logically, not more than a small portion.

If "being under attack" is seen as enough reason for something to represent the best and greatest, then all that negative forces need to do is to attack some bogus stuff to make it seem totally great. I think this happens a lot. A bit of careful reflection is generally in order... But note that I do not claim that any particular item listed by Ymarsakar is generally false! I'm only discussing the general ideas here.

The translation, use of language, and different people involved, means there will naturally be seeming contradictions. But at a higher perspective (or density), there is a truth like the Law of One that makes seeming paradoxes, consistent or logical.

You seem to agree with this, patrick, right?