David Wilcock

[Ali Quadir]

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

Absolutely you may. I am/was a physician. I assume you to be trained in the sciences as well?

Clinical and health psychology formally. Where I've also picked up a love for the philosophy of science. Though that love was not initially clear But all in all those courses have served me best since. And information technology as a hobby and eventually I turned the latter one into a profession. Unfortunately the job market for graduated psychologists is not very strong here while IT specialists just have to raise their CV and get a number of good offers. I had tried initially to follow technical physics formally but it was not as I had expected. And I switched to psychology to avoid spending my life in a lab. I avoided switching to Computational Science because I figured I was already proficient in that. It'd be better to not focus on one area.

Just like you (I think I safely assume) that never stopped me from just sticking to those two fields though. I believe in the principle of homo universalis. I try to master two new sub fields or technologies per year. The demand I put on myself is that I can have a good discussion with an expert, not necisarily that I know every detail there is to know. I'm trying to get a good grasp of local history this period. Though admittedly I never had a head for names and dates.

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

Thank you Ali for even yielding if ever so very slightly to this. This is exactly my position; the potential exists for another interpretation. There simply unequivocally are no solid positions or positive proofs when dealing with the esoteric, as there is no esoteric value system.

Make no mistake my friend this is yielding for the sake of argument. I have not accepted this as true yet. But I think it'd be silly not to contemplate or "try on for size" the alternatives.

Please allow me to further clarify: I am not arguing for a Gradualist Position in this thread as much as I am arguing against the Spontaneous Transition as a FACT. It is absurd to do so. Theses so called facts when speaking to the magical principles of the metaphysical become meaningless.

As they are in the physical. Facts are only useful in math and logic. The analogy of the black swan clearly illustrates this. (Ok, all swans so far where white... -> Fact: Swans are white. And then we went to Australia.)

Wilcock may be wrong. I may be wrong. It is not my argument that I am correct. It is my argument that Wilcocks deduction of instantaneous changes from Ra's words is not clearly invalid, it is not based on a single potentially misspelled word. And it is not contradictory to an enveloping longer period of gradual changes.

1."The Law of One gang" knows quite well how to spell I'm sure. It is simply a conjecture that no one knows which homonym was meant to be understood. The spelling is hardly in question. Discrete is spelled correctly as much as would have presumably been the word discreet had it been transcribed as well. Spelling is not at issue. Perception is.

Yet one interpretation puts the sentence at odds with scientific understanding the other puts it in agreeance with modern scientific understanding. Does this have meaning to you? Or do you consider this irrelevant?

2. Your suggest that "Modern science contradicts that the Universes is not discreet but is discrete" : The Universe(s) is not discreet? If we take this statement at face value we've taken an immeasurable quantum jump from our original conversation as regards "movement being discreet" vs "quanta being discrete" to now that the "Universe is not discreet". How would we know? How would modern science know? What can we say about the Universe(s) dear friend? It is a grand over-reach to even begin such a statement.

No it is not an overreach. You're a physician not a physicist. Therefore I assume you're not informed about quantum physics which states exactly that the universe is discrete.

For the record, as much as the exercise, I'm willing to consider that The Universe(s) is probably Infinitely and Eternally very, very, very, very discreet. That's why its a mystery. I dare say that the Universes being infinite, and thereby being the sum total of all containing everything, is both discrete and discreet. Wouldn't you agree?

I would unfortunately not agree.

When an atom jumps from one position to another it does this in discrete steps, not in discreet steps. When time ticks, this happens in discrete steps, not discreet steps. When water freezes this is a discrete change, not a discreet change. Evolution occurs in discrete steps, not discreet steps. Many of the universes steps are too small for us to register consciously, however the truth of the matter is that modern science considers the events discrete, and not discreet. This is different from the more mechanistic discreet perception that was in favour when you were still in school.

So I can totally understand where the misunderstandings are coming from. However I cannot agree with your assumptions of discreetness.

I may agree that the burst-change will be instantaneous. This reaffirms the obvious as inherent in critical mass. I think it however infinitely presumptuous to suggest that the instantaneous/burst change is one that needs occur on or about 2011-2013. This is the whole of the Wilcock assertion Ali?

Yes, and Ra names the 2011 as an appropriate nexus in session 17. So it's not just Wilcock, Ra ALSO asserts this. However, the difference is that Wilcock states it pretty much as fact. And Ra states it as a point of increased likelyhood without actually calling it a fact.

Therefore it is possible for Wilcock to be wrong. However, Ra's words do not prove that he is wrong. Ra is open to this possibility.

By your closing statement it seems as if you have all along been suggesting that Wilcock does not suggest that 2011-2013 is not his fixed date in as much as you state that he contradicts himself by suggesting that it is not just instantaneous, but is semi-instantaneous, and over a period of time ? You continue to use the analogy of freezing water reaching a critical mass at which point it freezes instantaneously, which is true. But then you further seem to suggest as if though Wilcock is not suggesting that this will happen on or around 2011-2013? If this is what you are suggesting, then we have moved considerably far away from what Wilcock in fact goes beyond suggesting, but in fact argues for vehemently, this in spite of his gradual contradictions which you quite correctly cite.

This is not what I am suggesting. I am suggesting that both Ra and Wilcock suggest the long term slow changes and both suggest the short term rapid (quantum jump) changes. Both types existing as two sides in the same process.

I call the dichotomy between the Law of One and Wilcock a false one because I think the Law of One interpretation is not fully understood. The references, as was seen before, clearly indicate a nexus of change around 2011 suggested literally by Ra... (Even if Ra did not go as far as to say that that would be THE point of change) And also Ra argues (If we assume no misunderstood words) that the change between the two densities will be instantaneous.

The reason for the misunderstanding is in my carefull opinion because science in the last decade has explored all these new principles and concepts and now we know nature often works this discrete way that was not understood in the past.

Do you really dear Ali believe that the God Force is Omnipresent? If so, as I know you do, do you really believe that this omnipresent force does not move discreetly, even infinitely and indescribably discreetly, across boundaries?

I don't believe this indeed. Evolution does not move discreetly, the big bang creation of the universe was not a discreet event. Birth and death are not discreet events. And in truth almost nothing in nature is truly discreet. The changes may be minor. But if you look very closely at the points of change. There will always be a radical change from one state to another without passing through a point in the middle. Discreet is simply when those points are so close together that our human perceptions fail to discern the discrete nature.

This is what Ra may have been referring to as a conjecture if the homonym was mis-perceived. Can you allow it as even a remote possibility? If you can not, it may be wiser to move on in any event in as much as we may have reached a stalemate. But I think in the context stated and implied you can. If so, we may move on as a result as well.

I can, and I have. I can easily be wrong. However the argument isn't if I can be wrong. The argument was if the interpretation of Ra's words by Wilcock is valid. I do not care to convince you of the truth of this or other matters. As far as I am concerned these are our views. Reality has little to do with our views at any rate. And the diversity in our ideas is on the long run a good thing. However, the discussion is if Wilcock understands the Ra material. It is my view that he has interpreted Ra in a valid way which might be different from yours. However to consider him a poor scholar just because he disagrees with you is poor scholarship in turn.

The difference is between validity and reliability. I'm arguing that Wilcock's interpretations are valid. Not that they are 100% reliable, in this universe, nothing is 100% reliable, or... proven for a fact.

As I said before you are a gentleman and a scholar. And I truly appreciate the time we spend together. Your patience with me is well demonstrated. And I'm learning from you. Yours is a better way than the hotheaded approach I might otherwise entertain. And I think over the time I've known you you're slowly becoming something of an example to me. However I think you are misunderstanding Wilcocks point of view and therefore misjudging his value as a scholar.

In the end he may absolutely be wrong. We may all be! However considering the interpretations that are possible I would personally choose wilcocks interpretation myself. I did not have your classical education. I was educated with the crazy weirdness of quantum mechanics and chaos theory. Like I said I think Wilcock recognized a dimension in the Ra material that was sofar misunderstood. This misunderstanding is understandable since the material is years ahead of modern science as it stands today. Let alone the modern science of 20 to 30 years ago.

I am most definately not saying that there are no gradual changes. We can clearly see in our world today that these gradual changes do in fact exist. There can be no doubt whatsoever that your interpretation about these facts is correct. Normal perception of changes today would consider them rapid but still somewhat discreet. However the belief I think I share with Wilcock is that these changes are upon closer inspection also discrete. And this will become more obvious as the universe starts to go from A to B without passing through the middle point. The 2012 shift will be as discrete as it gets.

Is there any other place where Ra clearly states that the changes will be discreet and never discrete?