David Wilcock

[Quantum]

Wilcock goes on to offer a Ra quote using the word "discrete" so as to drive his point home. While discrete may mean separate and distinct as he suggests, it is more universally utilized as meaning circumspection, or of a delicate nature, discrete – adjective -modestly unobtrusive; unostentatious, e.g.: a discreet, finely wrought gold necklace.

Ra: However, the nature of quanta is such that the movement over the boundary is that of discrete placement of vibratory level.

Wilcock: DISCRETE PLACEMENT. Discrete means "separate and distinct." A quantum leap. They also say that there is a "boundary" that we move over. When is the boundary? 2011-2013.

DISCRETE MEANS 'SPONTANEOUS'
Guess what… even before all the other supporting quotes about 3D/4D electrical incompatibility, what you've just read about the photon shifting across a "discrete boundary" is "proof positive", within the Law of One physics, that this is a spontaneous event.

Here is the definition of discrete:
discrete - 5 dictionary results
dis⋅crete
  /dɪˈskrit/
–adjective
1. apart or detached from others; separate; distinct: six discrete parts.
2. consisting of or characterized by distinct or individual parts; discontinuous.
3. Mathematics.
a. (of a topology or topological space) having the property that every subset is an open set.
b. defined only for an isolated set of points: a discrete variable.
c. using only arithmetic and algebra; not involving calculus: discrete methods.

Being that the homonyms discrete and discreet sound alike but have different meanings, and being that Carla's channeling was recorded on a tape recorder, just how do any of us know which meaning Ra intended?

Did Carla, upon waking from her trance, tell Don, "Ra meant d-i-s-c-r-e-t-e, not d-i-s-c-r-e-e-t"...?

Being that she didn't even remember what had been said, um, no, I don't think she did that. So, the word got transcribed according to the inclination (guess) of the transcriber.

Just this one single word, with 2 meanings, can totally change the meaning of that passage.

Quite a brilliant piece of logic, deduction, and awareness of nuance Monica! How extremely subtle, and sublime, if not "discreet", thus rendering the meanings "discretely" as totally different in meanings.(Pardon the pun of utilizing both words in one sentence).

I did not want this small gem of a point you uncovered to be lost Monica. I too made the same mistake in the terms of the word. The point is in fact so subtle that it bears repeating, in as much as it renders an entirely different meaning to the words of Ra as anything but subtle. The distinctions become bluntly different. The discreet meaning Ra may have stated, verses the discrete meaning, according to Wilcock's interpretation that he stakes everything on as his PROOF POSITIVE, renders the interpretation as vastly distinct, one from the other.

1. Ra: However, the nature of quanta is such that the movement over the boundary is that of discrete placement of vibratory level.

2. Ra: However, the nature of quanta is such that the movement over the boundary is that of discreet placement of vibratory level.

Interpretation one means a separate boundary, distinct and apart.
Interpretation two means a delicate boundary, as though almost imperceptible.

These are no small distinctions in as much as number two is not spontaneous. Wilcock stakes everything on number one as his grand finale as though a Proof Positive final argument, and one he is tired of repeating himself in. Interpretation two, if Ra meant discreet, in fact would support a gradual, as in a gradualist transition, in as much as discreet is defined as: fine, delicate, as though almost imperceptible.

The question remains that if an author speaks so authoritatively, going so far as to suggest that he is "tired of repeating himself", and offers this as his finale for his position by throwing his "all on the table", as it were, as the weightiest and best argument for his position as the "tell all" to the argument, it rather ends up more as a contradiction to his interpretation than as the proof or answer he hoped for, if not a spectacular belly flop. Thus by the mere subtle difference of but one single word, and moreover which word Ra meant, it renders Wilcock's entire premise for a proof positive conclusion as moot.

Here Ali, is a perfectly splendid example of the ambiguity you have offered as a thought that we rightly consider. As asked in the post previously, is the ambiguity coming from the reader's interpretation, or from the authors? If the author is so openly adamant and confident of his position as to stake out his position on such ambiguities, how then may this be interpreted as a scholarly argument, much less as a definitive conclusion? It leaves his assertion in ambiguity, as much as it does to his authority or to "his truth" as proof positive. At least this much one must concede to, given that two vastly contradictory positions may not occupy the same space. The author's interpretation is in question, and not slightly so.

Is it innocent? The answer is self evident. Of course it is. But that is hardly what is at issue. It is not a question of an honest mistake as much as it is a question to his scholarly (profound knowledge to a specific subject) authority that he repeatedly asserts. Wilcock may have blunderingly offered the very best explanation for a Gradualist Position ever imaginable as a Proof Positive assertion that the Harvest is a fine delicate almost imperceptible transition.

The interpretation remains a mystery. His authority does not.

Q