Here we go again (wikipedia)

[Adonai One]

Critique should come from the mainstream acceptance of the published material, not my personal opinion.

---

Wikipedia is not for opinions nor analysis from a personal perspective.

[vervex]

How about attempting to find a middle ground where all or most LOO followers can be satisfied? If the article as it currently stands is really biased and unreliable in its sources, how about starting over with a new, simpler article that is more objective? How about having simply to begin a description of what the Ra Material is followed a simple and objective plot, as it is often the case with other published books? Would this work? Just an idea.

[Adonai One]

>objective plot

Good luck finding that with everyone interpreting the plot as they find it to be "objective." This is why widely accepted secondary sources are absolutely needed.

[vervex]

I believe writing a simple and objective plot can be done. When you read a non-fiction book or watch a movie, do you need secondary sources to report the facts? Hardly so. If opinions and interpretations are kept at bay, then it is very possible to achieve. We just need someone conscientious and impartial to contribute to writing such plot.

Also, I agree that when it comes to exploring the themes of a published work, secondary sources are quite handy - otherwise it may turn into a personal interpretation from the Wikipedia user which may or may not be accurate. For a plot however, I believe something nice and clean cut could be created without causing drama and distortion.

[Adonai One]

Feel free to write it, Tina. Let us see how long it lasts before it degrades into an op-ed.

---

Also, I will mark each paragraph with citation needed.

[vervex]

Also, I will mark each paragraph with citation needed.

Citations are not needed for plots

[yossarian]

Using a website called 'way back when' I compared a cached version of the wikipedia page (cached on November 2013) to the current version. I am now unsure which version is what and who's edits... Here are some subtle differences that I found. Just a few examples:

1. Cached version: The Ra Material, also known as the The Law of One, is a series of five books purportedly authored by a non-human intelligence named Ra and his questioners through the process of channeling.

The current version has changed 'purportedly' (italicized) to 'reputedly'.

Purportedly means to claim something even if it may be false
Reputedly means what people believe. Subtle differences in connotations. Not too much of a big deal but makes slight difference.

2. The cached version changed 'hypnotic state' to 'non-conscious state'... What is a non-conscious state? Non-conscious in psychology may allude to consciousness - for example minerals are non-conscious because they do not have awareness. Non-conscious processes alludes to mental processes that work when we are sleeping or no aware. It does not describe a trance state necessarily as hypnotic state would imply.

And then:

3. Cached version: ' The material in the books conveys an elaborate philosophy called The Law of One having the basic principle that "All is One" or that all things that exist are ultimately the same thing.'

Current version: 'The material in the books conveys an elaborate grand reality called The Law of One having the basic principle that "All is One", or that all "things" that exist are ultimately the same "essence" within many forms.'

'elaborate philosophy' --> 'grand reality'

There is a HUGE difference to claim something is a philosophy and something is a 'grand reality'. This is distorted depiction of the Ra Material to say it is a 'grand reality'. This is what some were concerned about when A1's edits came out.

Have not finished comparing yet tho...

I'm not sure if the November 2013 cached version is what Yossarian wrote last year? Can you confirm this?

Over 20 people wrote the article. Most of these authors were worthless and made the page worse instead of better. You give good examples of where people put in dumb changes.


There were about 6 authors who made valuable additions and contribution. I wrote the main outline and I found most of the sources.

Wikipedia policy is not at all what THAT GUY is saying, btw. He has no idea what hes talking about.

[Parsons]

I feel I need to a use an analogy to compare Adonai's past behavior which I think it is okay, but how this latest behavior is NOT okay.

Previously on this website, Adonai came up with a lot of theories on the Ra Material, extrapolations, and stuff which I presume he just made up (his own philosophy). I do not agree with most of what he had to say. However, I do agree with him that a lot people here 'gave him too much crap' about it and were a little on the harsh side quite often. I never had an issue with it and went so far as to defend him. My reasoning / analogy:

The bring4th community is spending a day at the beach. Everyone is building their own sandcastles, designing them how they see fit but using the Ra sandcastle (lets imagine its a pyramid for fun) as a guide or inspiration. I.E,they are interpreting the material how they want. Adonai decided to join our beach party. He starts creating these elaborate sandcastles that are interesting looking, but don't really resemble the majority of the sandcastles that the other bring4thers are making (or, in my personal opinion, the Ra sandcastle). He will even get into lengthy discussions on his sandcastle's design with the other sandcastle makers. I think that is TOTALLY FINE since he is just making his own sandcastles and not bothering anyone else's.

Now comes this thread. So far, your argument seems to be "well, the design of my sandcastle is far superior to yours. Your understanding of sandcastle design does not make sense. I actually don't even believe in building sandcastles, but I am doing this anyways to show you how it's done." I find that standpoint to be annoying (and pretty humorous ), but again, it has not yet directly interfered with my sandcastle.

What DOES severely annoy me is what you did with that reasoning: "I am going to come over there and destroy your sandcastle because I don't think it is 'correct'. I am going to show up like a thief in the night and kick over your sandcastle without even telling anyone. Not only that, I won't bother to build my own (supposedly) superior sandcastle first (or ever) to replace the castle several people spent a lot of time and effort creating. The only way we can have a sandcastle is if the Sandcastle Review Board comes over here and approves of your sandcastle, but I certainly have no intention of helping. In fact, I want to let you know in advance that I intend to kick over any sandcastles you might build."

---

I agree with the majority of what yossarian has had to say about this, although I certainly don't agree with how he has said it. However, I will admit it has elicited a few smirks from me since he has been so over the top about it.

Overall, I also agree that the article could be better. There were a few points I don't agree on the wording of or just don't agree altogether. However, I felt that the article was about 90% of what I would want it to be: an explanation of WHAT the Ra Material is with as little personal interpretation/bias as possible.

Scrapping the whole thing was uncalled for. Especially since there is so much bias by the wiki admins against this type of material which is already annoying in the first place. It may be difficult to pull this one out of the fire again.

---

Adonai, one of the only semi-rational counter-arguments you could make hasn't been made, so I will take it away from you. If you had this in mind when you did this, I'm pretty sure you would have mentioned it by now:

We, ourselves, do not feel an urgency for this information to be widely disseminated. It is enough that we have made it available to three, four, or five. This is extremely ample reward, for if one of these obtains fourth-density understanding due to this catalyst then we shall have fulfilled the Law of One in the distortion of service.

You could have said this was your intention, to stop it from potentially being widely disseminated, but that clearly wasn't what you had in mind.

---

TLDR; Please stop kicking over our sandcastle.

[Adonai One]

My intent is accuracy. Nothing more.

[vervex]

What DOES severely annoy me is what you did with that reasoning: "I am going to come over there and destroy your sandcastle because I don't think it is 'correct'. I am going to show up like a thief in the night and kick over your sandcastle without even telling anyone. Not only that, I won't bother to build my own (supposedly) superior sandcastle first (or ever) to replace the castle several people spent a lot of time and effort creating. The only way we can have a sandcastle is if the Sandcastle Review Board comes over here and approves of your sandcastle, but I certainly have no intention of helping. In fact, I want to let you know in advance that I intend to kick over any sandcastles you might build."

I totally sat down earlier today with Immanuel and explained him about sandcastles and how destroying people's collective sandcastle without helping them build the structure for a new one was kind of mean. *smirks* I called it Teamwork 101. Seems like he's still chewing on that one.

[Adonai One]

I bear some pain knowing what I do is not in resonance. I care for the desires and beliefs of others involved. I just cannot support the article as it stands. I will never fight against the structures provided, Wikipedia guidelines are always being followed.

I accept whatever comes. Just know this material is a passion of mine and I wish not to see anyone mislead. That, again, is my primordial cause. I do not want to see one view of the material purported as fact.

---

I treasure this material as I treasure my life itself as it has shaped my life in the most potent manner. It has taught me what I know as love and wisdom.

I have no reverence for Ra nor any other entity associated with it. The existence of the metaphysics within the material concerning chakras and other affair do not concern me. The practical application of the ideal of Oneness and the archetypal mind are my primary concerns, as these have the greatest application for the good of mankind.

The day man externalizes his meaning completely in religious ideals of harvests, ascensions and other invisible attainments will be the day man collapses within himself and becomes something unable to advance in consciousness as a species.

The day man internalizes his meaning and sees himself as all things, in this moment, and sees himself as infinitely valuable and capable of bringing peace and satisfaction on Earth, on this very day without reaching some illusory, invisible mystical goal is the day man becomes a society of gods.

This material has convinced me to enter the domain of great analytical philosophical discourse to where I will tear asunder every damaging, limiting ideal of psychology, discipline and social maturity.

With this said, I believe people can understand what I am aiming to do.

[xise]

I have no reverence for Ra nor any other entity associated with it. The existence of the metaphysics within the material concerning chakras and other affair do not concern me. The practical application of the ideal of Oneness and the archetypal mind are my primary concerns, as these have the greatest application for the good of mankind.

Outside of harvest, nearly all references to the rays ("chakras") are done in practical terms of self-balance and as a feedback device for studying the primary forms of love. Ra makes it clear that it is not the rays themselves that are important, but it is the belief-concepts about love they provide feedback upon that is important.


The Ra material seems to imply that the study of the primary forms of love (with or without the use of the rays as the rays themselves are secondary to the concepts they give feedback on) as more fundamental than the archetypal mind, which changes from system to system and changes before and after veiling. Consider how Ra discusses how entities will wanderer densities to interact with others (depending on thier polarity) but also to undistort or balance the love within in themselves (which is reflected by the state of their rays). This is explicitly mentioned in the Ra material. It mentions nothing about the study of a particular local archetypical mind as a motivating factor to wander. This is because, in my opinion, of the structure of the universe and the specificity of the information regarding the archetypical mind:


Oneness-> Concept known to exist within all Octaves
Primary Conceptual Forms of Love (the Rays being feedback devices for these concepts) -> Concepts known to exist throughout this Octave in the same form
Archetypical Mind-> Concept varies significantly within this Octave: form varies depending on the location, density, sub-logos choices, and veiling conditions


Thus, the way I see it, all evidence points to the idea of oneness and the study of the primary forms of love as more fundamental than the archetypical mind which changes based on location in the universe, veiling, and density. While I agree that study of the archetypical mind is of great benefit, it seems that study of the archetypical mind without truly studying and understanding the primary forms of love is an inefficient way to learn about the nature of self and of the universe. It would seem then to teach the Law of One and the Archetypical Mind for the 3D Sol System without addressing and teaching about the primary forms of love which are the basis of this octave to be a disservice. To put another way, once one exits this solar system, or experiences a changes in veiling conditions, or travels to another density, the information about the current 3D Sol Archetypical mind is of limited application, whereas the learnings about oneness and the primary forms of love are completely applicable in their entirety.


Do you disagree with this? Why or why not?

[βαθμιαίος]

I totally sat down earlier today with Immanuel and explained him about sandcastles and how destroying people's collective sandcastle without helping them build the structure for a new one was kind of mean. *smirks* I called it Teamwork 101. Seems like he's still chewing on that one.

He can withdraw the nomination for deletion if he's changed his mind.

[Adonai One]

The chakras to me are veiled forms of the archetypal mind properly understood. I do not think the future of humankind's evolution relies in an understanding of chakras but the roots of the mind that create the chakras.

Unity is primordial.

While the archetypal mind, as Ra has said, does not make unity ever-clear, it enables unity to become subjective knowing once the archetypal mind is studied in great intensity, which I have been informed is not to be expected of most of its students.

I'll say one thing on love: It is my understanding that the concept of love on this forum is greatly different than my own. Mine is just satisfaction with what exists. The forum's idea seems to be willing oneself to be enshrouded in whatever is loved, even to the point of self-sacrifice.

---

How does this relate to this thread? This may help us understand how we see the content on the article. Otherwise, I suggest we leave this for another thread.

[Adonai One]

P.S. The chakras aren't equivalent to the cycles of the mind/body/spirit but I believe they have deep relationships, with the archetypal mind being the base.

[βαθμιαίος]

Wikipedia decided to keep the page. However, Adonai One/Immanuel Thoughtmaker has filed a request for a review of the decision.

[Adonai One]

Wikipedia shall decide. I am just one editor.

[xise]

βαθμιαίος, do you know what Immanuel Thoughtmaker is referring to in his Deletion review comment from June 19 20:18 UTC about "The original article was already deleted for unreliable sources but this copy was not properly nominated"? Is that information accurate?

The original article was already deleted for unreliable sources but this copy was not properly nominated. I nominated the copy but it seems the result was mistakenly "keep." I highly encourage a review of the deletion discussions to see this article is properly reviewed, removed of its unreliable sources and deleted until reliable sources are found. Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

A1, I'd ask you directly bro, but you're obviously completely biased and too emotionally involved in this whole gotta-get-the-Law of One-wikipedia-page-deleted thing (for whatever reason).

[Adonai One]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:...omination)

---

I finish what I start. I am not absolutely convicted but I am following where my intuition and rationality guides me in regards to helping this world with this information, even it means everybody hates me in the end.

[βαθμιαίος]

βαθμιαίος, do you know what Immanuel Thoughtmaker is referring to in his Deletion review comment from June 19 20:18 UTC about "The original article was already deleted for unreliable sources but this copy was not properly nominated"? Is that information accurate?

The history is a little convoluted. This iteration of the Law of One on wikipedia started with an article called The Law of One, which Yossarian began working on in 2011. In July of 2013, the page was moved to The Law of One (Ra Material). In January of 2014, it was moved back to The Law of One.

So somehow, in all the moves, there ended up being two pages, with The Law of One (Ra Material) redirecting to The Law of One. On June 10, the one called The Law of One was deleted. However, that happened after Adonai One/Immanuel Thoughtmaker had pruned the article to a stub, and the deleting admin didn't realize it.

At that point the page called The Law of One (Ra Material) became visible again, I guess because the redirect no longer worked, and Adonai One/Immanuel Thoughtmaker nominated it for deletion, too. Again, he pruned it to a stub while the deletion discussion was ongoing. However, this time his pruning was reverted and the decision was made to keep the page.

[Adonai One]

And I would prune it again as the sources are not the kind of material I wanted cited as fact in this world. Wikipedia can decide if it agrees.

---

From the deletion review:

Burn it with fire, if not nuke the site from orbit - If it's notable as a result of being described in RELIABLE sources (academic journals, books from university presses, newspapers, not WP:FRINGE crap), then the article can be remade. But in it's current form? Not notable, not neutral, not reliable, at all. I could see a case for the Influence section being the basis for notability, except that it's WP:OR, making arguments from primary sources that the primary sources do not explicitly state or do not demonstrate is noteworthy, instead of going with secondary sources that directly support article content. The article is currently on par with the sort of mess that'd exist if we wrote the Christianity article citing only the Bible, www.demonbuster.com , The Two Babylons, Michelle Remembers, the writings of Charles Manson, and The Da Vinci Code. The article does not handle its material the way Christianity or 9/11 conspiracy theories handle theirs, it just takes for granted that any book must be a reliable source because it's published. The article is a collective brown stain on the drawers of every editor on this site.

And if someone does find RSs in that mess, that one has to scour the page to find them demonstrates major problems with undue weight.

I'm wondering why anyone bothered to listen to Logos5557 and Yossarianpedia after the personal attacks they made. There's also the claim that this part of an Arbcom decision justifies this article's inclusion. That arbcom ruling says that we shouldn't delete articles on fringe subjects just because they're fringe subjects, but it does not in any way overturn WP:FRINGE's requirement to cite reliable, academic, and unaffiliated secondary sources when discussing such topics (instead of more fringe material). Bringing up that Arbcom decision like that is not even a matter of 'letter of the law vs spirit of the law,' but taking an out of context comma and claiming it trumps the whole of policy.

I've added the page to my watchlist, and will be mass deleting and CN tagging large portions of it if this discussion ends without deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

[Patrick]

And I would prune it again as the sources are not the kind of material I wanted cited as fact in this world...

:exclamation: CONTROL of information...

We all know where this leads.

Do you ?

[michael430]

[deleted]

[Horuseus]

This discussion would likely benefit from questioning A1's intents less and more focussing on what can actually be done to improve the Wiki article in question in an objective manner.

To be perfectly frank, the current state of the article(s) are/were less than satisfactory, so I'm not surprised A1 opted for deletion. The sources are haphazard and do little to reinforce the weighting of the material as is, and are also used incorrectly throughout. They seem forced and out of place in numerous places, and I would genuinely be surprised if said sources were actually consulted for the relevant passages to the LOO. As it currently stands, it detracts from the material and does a disservice in its portrayal of the text.

Improvements involve substantially cutting down article length to provide a cleaner, coherent and more objective view of the material rather than the subjective and out of context interpretation it currently uses. The way it reads right now is not user friendly at all.

E.g. "where a human channeler is said to be aligned with or in harmony with Ra, thus being able to act as a "receiver" for the "vibrations"(in this case: knowledge) emitted by the 6th density intelligence." - What the heck does that even mean?

Sources need to be cut down to a fifth of it's current length to those that are reputable, noteworthy, and as stated in the post above, more in line with reputable press and Newspaper articles. Collating such sources would be easier with the help of LLResearch, who would have a list of noted excerpts in such literature (There was a TV Show featuring Carla and Don if I recall, that would work).

Remove all the talk of densities, rays, cosmology and life. Simply allow for a concise introduction to the material and perhaps notable influence. Some tags or aspects it covers may help, but for the most part anything beyond is unnecessary.

I'll probably take a stab at a rewrite some time, but perhaps the above may help in moving the discussion to more productive endeavours. At the moment alot of this seems to pass for veiled mudslinging.

[AnthroHeart]

Removing talk of densities? Wouldn't that then no longer be Law of One?

[xise]

βαθμιαίος, do you know what Immanuel Thoughtmaker is referring to in his Deletion review comment from June 19 20:18 UTC about "The original article was already deleted for unreliable sources but this copy was not properly nominated"? Is that information accurate?

The history is a little convoluted. This iteration of the Law of One on wikipedia started with an article called The Law of One, which Yossarian began working on in 2011. In July of 2013, the page was moved to The Law of One (Ra Material). In January of 2014, it was moved back to The Law of One.

So somehow, in all the moves, there ended up being two pages, with The Law of One (Ra Material) redirecting to The Law of One. On June 10, the one called The Law of One was deleted. However, that happened after Adonai One/Immanuel Thoughtmaker had pruned the article to a stub, and the deleting admin didn't realize it.

At that point the page called The Law of One (Ra Material) became visible again, I guess because the redirect no longer worked, and Adonai One/Immanuel Thoughtmaker nominated it for deletion, too. Again, he pruned it to a stub while the deletion discussion was ongoing. However, this time his pruning was reverted and the decision was made to keep the page.

So the deletion referred to by "The original article was already deleted for unreliable sources but this copy was not properly nominated" was not appropriate for deletion at the time it was deleted, and the deletion was in fact undone?

If so, then the quoted language sounds like a misleading way to start another deletion discussion. Am I missing something?

p.s. Not sure if I can make heads or tails of the history notes myself, so I didn't link them.

[βαθμιαίος]

The deletion could have been undone, and maybe should have been, but it wasn't. Some edits were lost with the delete -- everything since the move in January. Basically, there was a fork of the article and now the fork has been deleted and the article reverted to how it was in January.

I'm not sure what Adonai One/Immanuel Thoughtmaker means by "this copy was not properly nominated." Maybe he means that it wasn't included in his original deletion nomination and thinks that both pages should have been deleted on June 10.

[xise]

The deletion could have been undone, and maybe should have been, but it wasn't. Some edits were lost with the delete -- everything since the move in January. Basically, there was a fork of the article and now the fork has been deleted and the article reverted to how it was in January.

I'm not sure what Adonai One/Immanuel Thoughtmaker means by "this copy was not properly nominated." Maybe he means that it wasn't included in his original deletion nomination and thinks that both pages should have been deleted on June 10.

Thank you for the clarification.

[Adonai One]

I am not in control of the article. I am a single editor voicing his opinion. My opinion extends as far as revision that can be reverted and making my voice known.

[isis]

a1, did u kno u got yourself mentioned in Carla's blog?

(congrats, wtg)

the one titled 2014-06-16