The Confederation

[Quantum]

I am almost positive that it is what we came here for.

I'm curious. What is it you think we came here for?

For the eggs of course (i.e. the polarization effort, discovery in awareness,etc). Whatever else is there that would have drawn us to be here otherwise?

To what you perceive as disagreement, I in fact agree, albeit admittedly with different perspectives or slightly different colored hues, particularly as regards my penchant of not stricturing or compartmentalizing words or concepts. Much like cloud gazing, it may be agreed that a party of two is indeed gazing upon the same cloud, but where one sees a bunny with ears the other sees a butterfly or puppy dog, notwithstanding that its just a cloud.

That analogy could be extended to signify the cloud as Truth (as from the perspective of the Creator) and ALL of our interpretations of it just that...interpretations of the same thing.

Exactly

Some of these discussions have ventured far beyond that, though. What I see happening is an attempt to delineate, demarcate, define, and categorize.

I have not seen this in any manner? Where might this be expressed? For whatever its worth I on the other hand have a penchant for not stricturing and/or compartmentalizing thoughts or words as tightly, this as specifically posted in my last post above that you quoted. I remain curious however where it is that you see this delineation or demarcation concern.

While I can appreciate the intellectual workout such discussions provide, I also see a potential negative result; for is that not what the religions do? Do they not say "This passage from our holy book means this and not that." ...? And does that not lead to dogma, doctrine, and, ultimately, separation?

Negative result? This forum offers a virtual cornucopia of thoughts expressed. That is precisely the beauty of this forum. I see absolutely no danger of a dogma being created, and certainly not as regards the LOO, given each participants thoughts are checked and discussed within a community. Where might it be that you see this imminent danger present? Certainly not through group discussion where all have an opinion?

As just one example taken from the discussions of these last few days, the case of the word distortion.....For the simple reason that it is used so much, I think it's very important that we either allow each person to interpret it for themselves, or, if we do pursue discussion of what exactly it means, then we might want to be very open to multiple offerings, for the sake of those who might be new to the books and who might take our words as absolute. By defining and categorizing concepts in the Law of One, even though to us it might just be fun, intellectual banter, we are essentially recording an evaluation/assessment/interpretation which could easily be made into a doctrine.

You are mixing Threads and Posts here. To do so takes the "Distortion Discussions" extremely out of context as much as it does this one. The discussion on distortion is better and more fairly served where the full gamut of it may be digested under "Sessions in Focus" under Lavazza's wonderful thread "Oahspe." May I refer the readers to the last post on Sessions in Focus/Oahaspe instead rather than offering a rewrite of the many exchanges there? Admittedly it is a very interesting topic with many interesting exchanges. I would particularly refer the readers to the last two posts of 3D Sunset followed by my own of our mutual opinion.

I would suggest in closing that this forum offers a veritable banquet of thought expressed verses a singular opinion for which we needn't be concerned for the new reader. It offers a cornucopia of higher thought. It would require a consensus of opinion if not a unified group thought to run the risk of what you feel might be a danger. I to the converse believe we as a group are very much searching and exploring as a group, in fact strongly seeking through the many varied and kaleidoscopic opinions offered that are the treasure of this forum. Given that a doctrine requires the heavy hand of authoritarianism to be enacted, I think we may rest easy that there is little to any chance of this occurring with respect to the LOO. Notwithstanding that we all agree that the LOO is some of the most powerful reading we have partaken in, it remains a minuscule readership nonetheless. As such there is no chance imho that it will ever become a doctrine, nor that we need be concerned for the new reader on this forum with it's many opinions. This argument would be better suited for the David Wilcock forum where "the one man opinion" is a requirement to be a member or follower in good stead.

I think this is not just a possibility but an inevitability, and thus carries a responsibility.

Again, I suggest you may rest easy. The inevitability of this here on bring4th has proven virtually non-existent.

All is well,

Q