David Wilcock

[Ali Quadir]

It is a most pleasant dialoging with you Ali. I am glad the ambiguity was understood and that you found it excellent. I hope you find more of the same below. Your logic is most discreet, or should one suggest discrete instead? lol. I dare say, and hope you would agree, that this is proving to be a most interesting thread. In fact, it has become a wonderful study mechanism as a result and therefore most delightful, turning into what I so had hoped for: a respectful, yet dicey, passionate, sensitive, and challenging discussion that may further our seeking.

And it is a pleasure to discuss the matter with a gentleman such as yourself dear Q.

Although I am a man that was trained in science, who then moved to the material world of investments, it is very clear that I will forever have the mind of the philosopher.

Might I out of curiosity ask what science you were trained in Q?

1. Quanta: In physics, a quantum (plural: quanta) is an indivisible entity of a quantity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quanta
A quantum is a measurement, i.e., the measurement of an indivisible entity.

2. Entity: An entity is something that has a distinct, separate existence, though it need not be a material existence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity

The point as to the quanta of entities being discrete is well taken, given that indeed they are "separate and apart" particles.

Not true, if you read the above wikipedia statements again you will see that the word particle is never actually used. In fact you were most wise to look up the meaning of the word entity as well. Because you realized that it was an important part of the definition.

Quanta are not particles. They are separate and apart entities. The difference between a particle and an entity is that an entity can express itself in a number of different ways including being a particle, while a particle can only be a particle. There is no reason for example why an entity should not express itself as a wave, or as a charge and indeed they do this in physics on a regular basis.

In a more spiritual realm we use the word entity also to describe ourselves, we are entities, yet we are not particles. When we speak about an electron bound to an atom we do not speak about a particle. The electron is in this case an entity inside the particle that is the atom.

However, my point:

It is the entity(ies) which comprise the quanta that are separate and apart, which by definition are discrete. Perhaps this is not what was spoken to by Ra as being discreet .

It may be the movement that is spoken to, which in fact may be discreet.

Potentially we could assume that Ra meant only the entities to be discrete. And the movement being discreet.

However, this would imply that Ra takes a radical departure from our meaning of the word quanta. We do use the word discrete to explain the movement across boundaries. An electron in an atom can only be in one of a few places. It can switch between those places but it can not be beteen these places. In stead what happens is that the electron ceases to be in one orbit and appears quite instantaneously in another orbit. This is movement across boundaries and has a number of interesting physical consequences. Physics students are taught to calculate the odds that a particle that is trapped inside a container could suddenly appear outside the container, without actually passing through the barrier.

This is what physics means when they say "The nature of quanta is such that the movement over the boundary is that of discrete placement of vibratory level."

This is the nature of our universe. Our classical world views are outdated and have been outdated for a number of years now.

Ra is eons ahead of our scientific understanding. I find it unlikely that he uses the old fashioned world view that we've taught ourselves.

This small nuance of meanings renders two entirely different interpretations, one in support for a spontaneous shift, verses the other in support for a gradualist shift. Either is based entirely on the homonym discrete vs discreet, with the emphasis on the particles of quanta being separate and apart and therefore discrete, or the motion over the boundary being fine and delicate if not imperceptible as in disrceet.

But let me remind you that you're still basing your philosophy on the assumption that the transcription of the session involved a spelling error.

It is not the nature of quanta to be discreet.

True enough. But it may be very much be in the nature for the movement to be discreet.

Unfortunately, one of the incredible aspects of modern physics is that the movement is not discreet, but discrete. I hear you thinking Xeno's paradox. And yes that's an incredible problem if we consider the universe to move particles in discrete steps. But ONLY if we do not assume speed to be a property inherent to a particle as opposed to only position in the classic views. All those problems go away if we assume impulse to be part of a particles makeup.

This proves that the original spelling is correct and we should not change this spelling just because we dislike the meaning of the original word.

Case in point. See what happens? It proves it only for you and only if you say it needs to, in which case one will no doubt be at odds at seeing it in any other way, as you won't let you.

My point is not that we cannot be wrong in our understanding. My point is that we should only depart from a point of view if we have found one that is better supported by the facts. Stepping from a literal translation of the sentence to the assumption of a spelling error has side effects that effectively make the step a step backwards.

For one, we're assuming the Law of One gang doesn't know how to spell. We're assuming that the universe is discreet and not discrete which is contradicted by modern science. We're assuming that Ra's further explanations about the subject imply the meaning of discreet and not as discrete. Which as we saw they do not.

If we assume the sentence to be correctly spelled not only do we find it to be confirmed by Ra's further explanations, we also find it to be supported by physics... To the letter.

I will say with full conviction, I do not know what Ra meant in every single instance, or even in many. I may be convicted in some. I may be lost in others. I am a Seeker. I am a student. I certainly do not believe in scholars or authorities however, who I know I know are just as lost as all the rest of us, and as particularly regards interpretations on this particular subject matter of esoterica, whether it be specifically the LOO, the Bible, or any other such source for such information. If I am being told by anyone that they have Proof Positive, I already know we have a problem. I can and will only smile respectfully, if not gently, and ask "say what?"

Well I have to agree with this. To state that in an empirical universe we can actually have the scientific version of "proof" of anything at all is based on a misunderstanding of what that word means and of what the empirical universe is like.

However, if we replace the word "Proof positive" with "Undeniable evidence" then I think we've got a much better understanding of what he is trying to say.

There is no doubt in my mind that Wilcock could be wrong. There is also a high likelyhood that he IS wrong on a few of his ideas. However, we have not yet determined him to actually be wrong on this gradual versus instantaneous question.

I therefore maintain once again that based on such a small nuance as to is Ra referring to the movement as being discreet, verses the quanta as discrete, albeit both movement and quanta are in the same one sentence, is nonetheless the same one sentence that Wilcock singularly stakes his reputation and scholarly claim on. How odd that he would find this one single sentence to do so with? I find it delightfully humorous as if though the universe giggles in profound glee at our dilemma of being lost, given this is the purpose of being here, i.e. to be lost.

Actually Wilcocks position is obviously not built solely on this statement. This to him is a very clear explanation of the discrete nature of densities. As it is to me. So I think I'm still very much inclined to accept Wilcocks interpretation. But lets consider the alternatives.

We've seen that Wilcocks position is not just instantaneous, he accepts clearly like freezing water that there is a longer period involved even if he suggests that the biggest actual changes are semi instantaneous.

Lets examine what support is there for the gradualist position shall we? Would you be so kind as to make the case for it? Lets not assume gradualism to be the logical position unless we've determined on what grounds we assume it to be the logical position.

And let me give you a spoiler in advance that just because Ra states long periods of time that are involved in the change this does not mean that there is not an instantaneous component to the change as well. As I said Wilcock also recognizes those longer periods of time. So any gradualist position should not just be built around the long periods but around the absence of burst changes.