Here we go again (wikipedia)

[Spaced]

Where did this idea of unequal standing come from? What is unequal standing? From what is value derived?

[Adonai One]

Saying the "creator" (all) is greater than the sum of its parts is saying the "creator" (all) is greater than itself and that it is not one with itself and able to overwrite "lower" parts of itself, and that The Law of One is not law at all but simply a truism we all ascend towards. With this attitude, unity is something that is earned and not inherent.

[Spaced]

Saying the "creator" (all) is greater than the sum of its parts is saying the "creator" (all) is greater than itself and that it is not one with itself and able to overwrite "lower" parts of itself, and that The Law of One is not law at all but simply a truism we all ascend towards. With this attitude, unity is something that is earned and not inherent.

I don't follow. I don't actually understand how you came to this conclusion at all it has nothing to do with anything I said at all. Anyhow it's well past my bedtime so I'm gonna tap out here maybe I'll come up with a more cogent response tomorrow.

[Adonai One]

There is only one part. What is seen as greater is what is seen as one with the self's desires: This is the illusion. The reality is that all is equally whole and all is desired, all is inherently one with the self.

I'm reductionist in that I've reduced it to one part that can produce the illusion of many, not many becoming one, but many being inherently one that pretends to be many. The whole is only greater than the sum of its parts if it is believed the parts are not inherently the whole. In examples involving manyness, this is the case. When manyness is seen as an illusion, there is only one, one part, one whole, The Law of One.

[xise]

A1, you nominated the page (now a stub) again for deletion? What happened to you being ok with a stub of an article if that was the decision of the community?

I don't really understand how you can compartmentalize your beliefs and your actions like so. You're going balls to the wall to delete a wikipedia article for supposed inaccuracy/unreliability that has now passed multiple deletion debates, all the while making posts about divination and fortune telling using playing cards. Color me totally confused man.

[Adonai One]

I think about the long-term. There is no guarantee the article will remain a stub especially with plans to have members summarize the plot of the books on their own and paste it into the article without a secondary source.

[xise]

I think about the long-term. There is no guarantee the article will remain a stub especially with plans to have members summarize the plot of the books on their own and paste it into the article without a secondary source.

This seems to be a change in position from before?

It is true that if you want to prevent any possibility that the Law of One page could contain unreliable or inaccurate statements at some point in the future, complete destruction and deletion of the page would foreclosure that opportunity.

Remind me to never get caught in your crosshairs!

[Adonai One]

You would find a very passive man behind the keyboard. I'm just disciplined to stand by my desires. I'll be happy with whatever happens.

I initially never intended to have to defend myself on the forum for a reason... I considered this a Wikipedia-only matter.

[xise]

I have to admit, this is catalytic for me as I'm struggling to understand you Adonai One (though I know I'll get there).

-----

6-16-14: Your bring4th post made during the second afd discussion; the first afd was not discussed on this forum at all. (This second afd discussion, involving over half-dozen people, eventually closed with a "Keep" decision):

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.

6-19-14: Your bring4th post made right after you nominated the afd-Keep decision of 6-19 for a deletion review. (This week long deletion review, involving over a dozen of people, ended with an "Endorse" of the earlier keep decision):

Wikipedia shall decide. I am just one editor.

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.

6-27-14: Your response (emphasis added) made on Wikipedia right after you re-nominated the Law of One page for another afd after the deletion review ended on 6-27 in an endorsement of the earlier keep:

* Procedural Keep - The previous AFD just last week found there was sufficient sources and notability to keep. The Deletion review found that there was no error in that determination. While consensus may change over time, this AFD was started a day after the previous KEEP and ENDORSE, which strikes me as a desire to delete at any price, and seems a bit disruptive. Note: I was the closing admin for the last AFD.Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Objection - I am following Wikipedia policy and acting within what is freely enabled and permitted. I have not acted against any general guideline and I will accept the inevitable consensus these discussions will bring. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 02:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

-----

This really doesn't seem like acceptance and loving manifestation. This seems more like control and a battle of wills. I'm not seeing you working with us here on bring4th to improve the page, and it doesn't even seem like you are working with or respecting the community decision making process of wikipedia. I just see a person who wants it his way, or the highway, everything else be damned.

Help me understand.

[Adonai One]

Show me who I am battling and falsifying? Show me who I want to defeat? I have no sense of certainty, xise. I feel there is nothing to conquer. In fact, I know for a fact the article most likely won't be deleted anytime I soon. I still voice myself seeing if a consensus using my suggestion has potential to exist. And my opinion will be cited in the future and used as a tool if this article ever falls apart.

This is collaborative, it would just take a long time for us to reach an understanding in discussion. I would be dishonest if I pretended to agree with people and say I want this article existing as it is, so all I can do is voice my opinion and see if people agree.

I'm certainly respecting the Wikipedia community by seeing if optimal consensus has been reached and if all the possible voices have been heard.

I want my way and the way of others as well in a perfect consensus without suppressing my own view. There is no true consensus if one part of the consensus has their opinion artificially suppressed.

[βαθμιαίος]

For what it's worth, Immanuel Thoughtmaker has now been "whacked with a wet trout" (wikipedia-ish for "you did something silly"). He has also been referred to a guideline that says

When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently. Sometimes, this is done simply to prove a point in a local dispute. In other cases, one might try to enforce a rule in a generally unpopular way, with the aim of getting it changed.

Such behavior, wherever it occurs, is highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or related pages. If mere discussion fails to resolve a problem, look into dispute resolution.

Practically speaking, it is impossible for Wikipedia to be 100 percent consistent, and its rules will therefore never be perfect. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics.

I want my way and the way of others as well in a perfect consensus without suppressing my own view. There is no true consensus if one part of the consensus has their opinion artificially suppressed.

What would the consensus be between "delete" and "don't delete"?

[Horuseus]

I want my way and the way of others as well in a perfect consensus without suppressing my own view.

How does that work then? Seems like a contradiction.

[Adonai One]

I have faith that it can work out. I have faith in my views and the views of others.

I do not believe it is a contradiction to unify the self completely with others, without suppressing either one. I do not believe in self-suppression in any case.

Whatever the mechanics are, I believe a true consensus is always possible.

[Spaced]

I have faith that it can work out. I have faith in my views and the views of others.

I do not believe it is a contradiction to unify the self completely with others, without suppressing either one. I do not believe in self-suppression in any case.

Whatever the mechanics are, I believe a true consensus is always possible.

Notice the use of the word 'work.' To work things out both sides must make an effort, you can't just have one side dictating the terms of what is and isn't acceptable to them and refusing to budge an inch forcing the other side to do all the work. I realize you can't see the irony of your position since you have some kind of weird mirror vision that projects your issues with authority onto every relationship you approach, but what you are doing here is suppressing the views of others in favour of your own. You are, whether consciously or more likely unconsciously, attempting to mold or suppress the view of others, something you balk at when others do the same to you.

[Adonai One]

How am I suppressing the views of others? I am not restricting the thought, movement nor data of anyone within what is inherent.

And I shall continue to stand by my desires "without bulging," without remorse. This is the same compassion I will have for another's desires when such events become available.

I am not convinced I am "dictating" anything other than the communication of my own thought.

I don't believe effort is necessary in either party, only what is inherently chosen and desired.

[Spaced]

so why do you keep flagging the Law of One article for deletion? That is a direct attempt at suppressing the view of those who wrote the article.

[Adonai One]

I do not "flag the Law of One article for deletion." I do not have the power to delete articles alone. I have the ability to create a discussion to see if there is consensus among a majority of the community to delete the article. I create discussions and make suggestions.

There is no suppression if one sees they inherently agree to these possible consensuses when they submit content to Wikipedia. Additionally, further discussions can always be made to bring back prior work. Nothing is permanent, nothing is "controlled" or "suppressed." Instead suggestions are consistently considered, implemented, reverted and reimplemented in the face of what is desired. This to me is true collaboration.

---

Also, I am sorry I do not believe in authority.

[Bring4th_Austin]

I am an expert and as far as I know nobody has a deeper understanding of The Law of One than I. I am qualified to discern what is reliable here.

...I do not believe in authority.

[reeay]

Hail King Joffery of Sandcasterly Rock!

[Adonai One]

I am an expert and as far as I know nobody has a deeper understanding of The Law of One than I. I am qualified to discern what is reliable here.

...I do not believe in authority.

Expertise is not equivalent to authority, at least in how I would work with most purported experts (using them as a possible perspective and not as an authority on what should be done absolutely).

Regardless, I think one can detect the high amount of sarcasm in that statement.

---

Hail King Joffery of Sandcasterly Rock!

F*** the kingsguard. F*** the city. F*** the king.

---

Before somebody says an expert is somebody with experience, I will respond beforehand and say an expert to me is somebody who can use their knowledge to fulfill people's desires effectively. I see The Law of One as a tool that can enable present life experience infinitely in many ways outside of focusing on "The Harvest."

[ChickenInSpace]

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

[Adonai One]

And the consensus is keep.

[βαθμιαίος]

Not just keep but snow keep, as in "If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process."

Comment by the closer: "The result was Snow keep. Kept, keeping ratified at DRV, this re-re-nomination posted slightly over an hour later; no chance this will pass."

[Adonai One]

I've squeezed all of the objective material I can get out of the Gnosis article and put it on The Law of One article. It's square and objective now... Let's see how long that lasts.

[xise]

I've squeezed all of the objective material I can get out of the Gnosis article and put it on The Law of One article. It's square and objective now... Let's see how long that lasts.

I like what you've added to the stub. It's well written. I think if you added the outright statement the Gnosis article makes as to why he believes the Ra material notable, it would clearly and strongly establish the Ra material's notability in it's field - from the Gnosis article: "Purely home-grown Western maps of the inner realms are a bit harder to come by....Be that as it may, one of the most intriguing systems for considering the inner planes to appear in recent times comes from a rather unexpected source: the Ra Material...."


To me, that's the author's statement as to why he finds the Ra material notable. For Mr. Kinnay, the Gnosis editor and author, the Ra material is notable because it's a rare and intriguing home-grown western map of the inner realms. That's why he discusses and analyzes the material. But I like how you get into his analysis, as it shows his analytic and critical perspective, which helps if people question the source because they are too busy/lazy to understand the magazine's own reliability for analysis of the field.


Edit: Also, if I was the sort of person interested in inner planes, as I read that statement from Gnosis, it kind of makes me want to pick up and read "one of the most intriguing systems for considering the inner planes" known as the Ra material. Or in other words, it's what is termed a "hook". And hooks are a good thing, because they get people interested in a subject in a natural way.


Maybe I will sign up for wikipedia to edit myself. Creation sure seems like a lot of fun.

[βαθμιαίος]

Maybe I will sign up for wikipedia to edit myself. Creation sure seems like a lot of fun.

Do it!

[Patrick]

It always astonishes me how people can read the same words and get such different understanding from them.

We really only see what we want to see. This at least I believe we can all agree on. Or can we?

[Adonai One]

We see what what we wish to manifest in our lives: Significance. Ra's words of ascension (The Harvest) were most significant to a lot of people here. However, Ra's primary significator (pun) was The Law of One and not The Harvest. We can discern intended meaning outside of projected meaning astutely if we wish to see the most relevant perspectives in the context of reliably discerning a material. We can choose to see what was truly intended.

Do I reliably discern the intent of Ra's words? That's for all of you to discern for yourselves when you read my words. I'll continue to believe in myself.

[Patrick]

...We can choose to see what was truly intended...

To my knowledge this is absolutely impossible while incarnated in veiled third density, which you and I currently are.

It always astonishes me how people can read the same words and get such different understanding from them. We really only see what we want to see.

We see what what we wish to manifest in our lives...Do I reliably discern the intent of Ra's words? That's for all of you to discern for yourselves when you read my words...

Ok lets try something if you wish.

I will quote passages of the Law of One and give you my understanding and then you give me yours. How is that ?

[Patrick]

The famous Ra's poker game metaphor that we all know about.

Questioner: Thank you. Can you expand on the concept which is this: that it is necessary for an entity to, during incarnation in the physical as we call it, become polarized or interact properly with other entities and why this isn’t possible in between incarnations when he is aware of what he wants to do, but why must he come into an incarnation and lose memory, conscious memory of what he wants to do and then act in a way that he hopes to act? Could you expand on that please?

Why do we have an interest in polarity ?

Why polarize at all ?

Why is such a thing required ?

Why do we have to experience the veiling ?

Why lose our memory ?

Why lose the knowledge of the reasons we had to come here ?

Why do we need to expose ourselves to the possibility of suffering ?

Why does evil even have a chance to exist in the first place ?

Ra: I am Ra. Let us give the example of the man who sees all the poker hands. He then knows the game. It is but child’s play to gamble, for it is no risk. The other hands are known. The possibilities are known and the hand will be played correctly but with no interest.

Without the veil of forgetfulness, we see all the consequences of any and all actions we may do and all thoughts we may have.

So we will choose correctly no matter what catalysts we are presented with.

It seems that before incarnating here, we thought that this had no interest.

We wanted to see what we would choose if we did not know of the consequences.

In time/space and in the true-color green density, the hands of all are open to the eye. The thoughts, the feelings, the troubles, all these may be seen. There is no deception and no desire for deception. Thus much may be accomplished in harmony but the mind/body/spirit gains little polarity from this interaction.

In time/space of third density and in space/time and time/space of all densities starting from the fourth (green), we know all the thoughts and memories of all the entities we interact with.

No one lies or even wants to lie. No one wants to hide anything at all from anyone.

So of course, there is harmony but very little polarity.

Let us re-examine this metaphor and multiply it into the longest poker game you can imagine, a lifetime. The cards are love, dislike, limitation, unhappiness, pleasure, etc. They are dealt and re-dealt and re-dealt continuously. You may, during this incarnation begin — and we stress begin — to know your own cards. You may begin to find the love within you. You may begin to balance your pleasure, your limitations, etc.

The game is our incarnation here in 3d.

Our cards are the biases we brought with us and the catalysts we programmed for ourselves.

Our cards are also the possible choices we have at each moment in each catalyst we face.

We MAY become aware that we are playing a game within our incarnation.

We may BEGIN to become aware of the biases and the kind of catalysts/lessons we wanted to learn before we incarnated.

We may begin to search for love.

We may begin to balance. Balance our pleasure, our limitations, etc. Balance our self, as in begin to know our self with more finesse.

However, your only indication of other-selves’ cards is to look into the eyes.

BUT we cannot know any of this for other people.

We can only build a model, a representation for ourselves, of what someone else biases and choices might be.

You cannot remember your hand, their hands, perhaps even the rules of this game.

We cannot know what we really wanted to learn.

We cannot know who we really are.

We cannot know what others really wants to learn.

We cannot know who other people really are. They do not even know this themselves.

We do not even remember that this is a game ! That our incarnations were meant to be fun, as games are supposed to be.

We certainly cannot know how the mechanics of this game works.

This game can only be won by those who lose their cards in the melting influence of love

The only positive way to make obsolete the need to incarnate here...

;can only be won by those who lay their pleasures, their limitations, their all upon the table face up and say inwardly: “All, all of you players, each other-self, whatever your hand, I love you.” This is the game: to know, to accept, to forgive, to balance, and to open the self in love.

The only positive way to make obsolete the need to incarnate here...is to release all masks and be who you are. To let the light show ALL angles of your self.

Then accept others as they are.

There is no one to convince of anything.

There is nothing one is supposed to be doing.

There is no need to worry about wars.

The murderers are to be loved and accepted and forgiven. Without us trying to change them.

When our light falls onto others, and shows things we may think is ugly.

Then we simply have to realize that it is not ugly and only the model we built of these things is ugly.

Change this model, this perspective within you.

Once you are done, nothing is ugly anymore.

All is well always.

Whomever we are, whatever we do or did, whatever is happening around us, we love each others.

Then we win !

This cannot be done without the forgetting, for it would carry no weight in the life of the mind/body/spirit beingness totality.

None of this would be possible without incarnating under the veil of forgetfulness.

"Why do we have an interest in polarity ?"

We did not actually at first. STO and STS only appeared after the veiling was invented by a Logos.

It was not even imagined before it was experienced.

"Why polarize at all ?"
"Why is such a thing required ?"

Because now that the veil exists, it resulted in the need for a choice between STO and STS. We ALL have to make that choice, we ALL have to polarize.

"Why do we have to experience the veiling ?"
"Why lose our memory ?"
"Why lose the knowledge of the reasons we had to come here ?"

Without it we could not be playing this game.

"Why do we need to expose ourselves to the possibility of suffering ?"
"Why does evil even have a chance to exist in the first place ?"

These are only after effects of the veiling process.

There is actually no need for suffering.

There is no need for STS. It only exists because a part of each of us does not want to face the rest of us. Since something else than what is real is available, a part of us chooses this over reality.