Here we go again (wikipedia)

[Adonai One]

I am going to read this when I am mentally prepared.

[isis]

I am going to read this when I am mentally prepared.

good thinkin'

[Adonai One]

And... not that bad. Just a misunderstanding of Wiki-policy. I think people need to realize that Wikipedia isn't Britannica. It isn't a round table of experts on subjects asserting their views: It's information from secondary sources considered reliable by the general Wikipedia community.

Any addition, reversion and deletion is contestable. Nothing is permanent. Even deleted articles can be restored.

I am just participating in the collaborative process. Wikipedia is endless change that must be accepted and worked with. People have to be willing to discuss their views and defend them.

---

I have no guilt mainly because I do not feel like I am doing anything permanent, I do not feel like I am restricting anything. Anybody can contest me.

---

If it can be reverted or deleted, it probably should be. If a revert or deletion can be reverted, it probably should be as well. It's a process that tests its own integrity. It prevents stagnation and allows things to accommodate all perspectives.

[ScottK]

"collaborative" process is not really what you are engaging in. The people who will make the final judgment are people who really don't understand the Law of One.

You seem to be engaging in a "conflict" process to maximize the conflict associated with editing this entry.. Or at least, that's what it looks like to me from the cheap seats.

[Adonai One]

I see nothing collaborative in people keeping their mouth shut about poor quality articles out of a fear of offending people. I see people supporting mediocre quality in the name of love. While purportedly compassionate, this view, it is very unfortunate for people who wish to see this encyclopedia reach a state that fulfills the desires of all perspectives.

---

Also, there are no final judgements. Everything is contestable.

[xise]

It's information from secondary sources considered reliable by the general Wikipedia community.

This sounds great until you realize that the people involved in determining what is reliable or not seem to make those decisions without actually examining the sources cited. It's not just you A1 -most of the commentary on the state of Law of One article is very shallow when it comes to discussing reliable sources because no one has actually looked into all or even most of the citations.

Past a few legitimate concerns with self-published sources, thus far the wikipedia decision making process reads like a bunch of incompetent laywers arguing about case law (sources) without having actually haven read any of the cases.

Now, if someone argued that the burden to show reliability is on the proponent of the source that would make sense, except that doesn't seem be Wikipedia policy nor is it anyone's argument. Instead, people on the wiki site seem to be affirmatively deciding that the articles sources are not reliable based on titles, which is a total joke and destroys the credibility of the process. The outcome really has no integrity whatsoever.

And now deletion discussions are occurring over a half a year old page instead of the merits of the current June 2014 page because it was speedily deleted after an improper pruning. This whole thing is a comedy of errors and I'm glad I followed this because if what is happening to the LOO page is par for the course, then Wikipedia itself is clearly not a reliable source of information.

[Adonai One]

The most rational policy on questionable sources: Shoot first and ask questions later. Waiting for verification while misleading people indefinitely is a no-no. I believe reasonable assumptions can be made from book summaries, titles and the respective reputation of the author.

[sunnysideup]

I believe reasonable assumptions can be made from book summaries, titles and the respective reputation of the author.

Assumption is the mother of all fuckups.
So you rather base your opinion on secondary sources like a summary than the source itself?

[Horuseus]

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

Only from the Wiki article. The LOO was not the first to introduce the concept of 'densities' but rather built upon it utilising previous terminology Carla and Don were aware of. One of which is The Saucer Speaks by George H. Williamson.

The wiki article should serve to describe what the Ra Material is, but anything beyond is unnecessary unless it can be substantiated from other sources.

[Adonai One]

I believe reasonable assumptions can be made from book summaries, titles and the respective reputation of the author.

Assumption is the mother of all fuckups.
So you rather base your opinion on secondary sources like a summary than the source itself?

Again shoot first and ask questions later. If it can be challenged and removed without anybody providing proof that it is reliable, it should be. Material can always be restored. Tell me, why should material that is potentially misleading remain?

[Patrick]

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.

What if Carla or Jim mostly agreed with what was on that page?

Which version of The Truth is the right one?

Please do not forget that the mainstream's vision of any spiritual material will probably never match the vision of those practicing said spiritual material. Wikipedia, by its nature, represents the mainstream vision.

So I do not expect that you would ever be really satisfied by what it would have to say about the Law of One.

And I do not personally believe that mass changes is helpful. What makes you believe anything good might come out of doing that?

[Adonai One]

Carla and Jim are just like everyone else in my opinion. If the Ra material is legitimate, then they are interpreters of its meaning like you and I.

If you want something that is not mainstream to represent the Law of One, then you should look elsewhere that is not Wikipedia.

---

Change forces people to become satisfied with all perspectives involved so stability can be found naturally through a true consensus, considering every change that occurs, and not through suppressing everyone's perspective but an approved few.

[Parsons]

You can say you are some kind of "expert" on the Law of One all you want, but you demand proof and evidence in an area which there is none. The law of free will prohibits empirically 'proving' any of this material. In my opinion, if you were directly involved with the Ra channeling, you would have either had to be excluded from the channeling or if you had insisted on being there, you would have prohibited the channeling from ever occurring.

You probably can’t answer this question but I will ask it now since we are in the area that I think this occurred in. I feel this somewhat of a duty of mine to ask this question because Henry Puharich will be visiting me later this month. Was this entity involved in any of these times of which you have just spoken?

Ra: I am Ra. You are quite correct in your assumption that we can speak in no way concerning the entity Henry. If you will consider this entity’s distortions with regard to what you call “proof” you will understand/grasp our predicament.

[Adonai One]

I am over the proof stage seeing the power of the archetypal mind while seeing that not even the channelers have fully exposed the teachings these cards reveal.

---

This thread in a nutshell:

[Parsons]

If you are over the proof stage, then why are you demanding 'reliable sources' to support a simple description of what the LOO is? There is no such thing as reliable sources and there never will be as long as there are third density entities here due to potential free will infringement of making the Choice. The best we can hope for is references made by fellow seekers.

Ultimately there is no 'authority' that is more or less qualified to interpret the material than anyone else. That is why I have never proclaimed myself as such despite whatever my opinion is on the matter. Even Ra, in the 6th density, went out of their way to make it clear they are merely humble messengers and not authorities on the matter.

[Patrick]

Carla and Jim are just like everyone else in my opinion. If the Ra material is legitimate, then they are interpreters of its meaning like you and I...

My point is: why change/delete someone else's interpretation?

[sunnysideup]

Again shoot first and ask questions later. If it can be challenged and removed without anybody providing proof that it is reliable, it should be. Material can always be restored. Tell me, why should material that is potentially misleading remain?

I'm actually pretty amazed on how Wikipedia operates but I guess I shouldn't be. And sure, I have no doubt that there are sources not so handsomely written and should probably be discarded or at least from the Wikipedia page. However I wouldn't feel comfortable myself by rejecting material without actually reading it first. Even if material is supposedly misleading, then I still would like to find out for myself what all the fuss is about. Don't you feel everybody should have a fair chance to make oneself heard? Without people only going by the title and summary? Because to me that is literally judging a book by its cover.

[Plenum]

The Moderators have reviewed the interaction that took place between yossarian and Adonai One earlier in this thread, and there were a few places where the Guidelines were overstepped.

Namely, the First Guideline:

1) Respect. Compassion. Loving-kindness. Empathy. Trust. Goodwill. Desire to serve. Embracing each other. Opening our heart. Participants are asked to keep the thought in the forefront of their minds at all times that each on this forum IS the Creator. Please keep communication respectful at all times and in all ways. The participant may disagree to the bone with an idea without personally attacking the author of the idea. Please remember that we are all here to expand our knowledge, deepen our understanding, and support one another by reflecting our divinity to each other. We are One being -- we are not here to forget the real.

While vigorous debate can be very productive in exposing biases and understandings, it is not within the Guidelines to engage in direct personal attacks and insults.

The relevant individual(s) have been contacted regards this matter, and the infringing posts have been edited.

The Bring4th Mod Team

edit: typo

[Horuseus]

Looks the majority of Ra Material Wiki page got nuked as well, though not too surprising.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Law_of_..._material)

Honestly it reads better now. Still needs reworking but the idea of keeping it short and simple as an intro is all it needs.

[Bring4th_Austin]

I opened a ticket today in Wikipedia's version of a help desk, posing the question of how to determine whether a published book is a candidate for having its own Wikipedia article. I was led into some circular reasoning, the user helping me using two pages of criteria, each attempting to reference the other, but what I determined ultimately is that Wikipedia is a proper fustercluck when it comes to determining what is a proper article or not. It is clear that in the case of a book such as the Ra material, it is a "majority rules" kind of situation, where a mob of users can jump into a discussion of whether an article's sources are reliable and sway the discussion one way or another based upon their own personal biases, ideals, and beliefs.

This creates a natural sort of mob mentality, group think environment, where the culture of Wikipedia is overwhelmingly material reductionist and so that will be reflected in what can be considered a "reliable source," despite the source meeting the (confusing and unclear) criteria provided.

So the overriding authority for Wikipedia isn't necessarily the reliability of the sources, not the clarity or effort put into the article, and hardly even the individual opinions of the users who discuss whether to delete or keep an article; it is the overwhelming ideal of material objectivism/reductionism within the Wikipedia culture. It's not surprising to me that any sort of article discussing the Law of One would have a difficult time persisting within such an environment. You can get a sense of the idealism of the culture in the deletion review discussion, where many of the users voting to delete use very charged and emotional language, revealing their passion for the ideals they are set to uphold.

So I guess my main question is why do those who wish to see the Law of One article upheld within this environment feel that way? What is the driving force behind the desire for there to be a Law of One wikipedia article at all? Especially if it is an uphill struggle against an idealistic culture.

[Adonai One]

Isn't Ra material reductionist?

41.9 Questioner: Then what is the simplest being that is manifested? I am supposing it might be a single cell or something like that. And how does it function with respect to energy centers?

Ra: I am Ra. The simplest manifest being is light or what you have called the photon. In relationship to energy centers it may be seen to be the center or foundation of all articulated energy fields.

It seems when everything, the creator, first manifested this universe from the previous universe it just started as waves of polarizing photons. Big Bang anyone?

[yossarian]

Hey Guys!

I'm back for some more laughs!

So.... you can all thank Logos5557 (he still hasn't told me his Bring4th username) for saving the article. He had to argue with a dozen deletionist atheists and was lucky enough to have an admin rule on the page that... DUN DUN DUN...actually knows Wikipedia policy!

But here's the part that I think is hilarious: the closing admin DGG (who I've argued with before) actually cited my specious, tongue-in-cheek, joke of a delete argument!

I meant this as a joke to parody how ****ing stupid the atheist deleters are:

delete I vote to delete this article, because I'd rather that wikipedia was not the first hit on google when someone google's something. The more wikipedia articles that are deleted, the better. While this page has a tortured history and over 50 sources have been mentioned at various points showing that the series of book is notable, there is no point in trying to keep this topic on wikipedia because the admins don't even know their own rules. A prime example is Drmies who doesn't know the wikipedia definition of a reliable source or a notable book as per WP:NBOOK. In conclusion, DELETE this article. Yossarianpedia (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The closing admin took this comment at face value, ruled that deletion would be against policy, and kept the article. Nice. Maybe I should always argue the OPPOSITE of what I want! Reading this made me laugh for quite awhile.

Here's the issue with the current article: the title has (Ra Material) in brackets which creates a policy issue. It is harder to substantiate the Law of One as a concept than as a Series of Books. It is also harder to substantiate the First Book than it is to substantiate the series. Therefore the article should be on the series of books, and the series is called "The Law of One"

Putting (Ra Material) at the end of the title opens a vector for deleters to attack the basic category of the page. Is it about one book? A series? Or a New Age concept? They can then make policy arguments that are DIFFERENT from the ones that I have established over a year ago. Logos5557 successfully used the policy line and talking points I created a year ago to defend the article this time.

if you keep to the policy I laid out, the article conforms with wikipedia policy EASILY. But if you start to recategorize the page, change the title (as was done by someone not sure who) and so on the page shifts onto shakier ground.

[Parsons]

So I guess my main question is why do those who wish to see the Law of One article upheld within this environment feel that way? What is the driving force behind the desire for there to be a Law of One wikipedia article at all? Especially if it is an uphill struggle against an idealistic culture.

Because the vast majority of people have no clue how the politics of Wikipedia work behind the scenes. Most people are just going to google something and wikipedia will be in the top 5 results. If we provide a simple description of what the material is, it could potentially be a critical link in the chain of events to allow them to awaken.

My own awakening hinged on me googling information about the end of the Mayan calendar. Someone had put up a page with a whole list of sources of information about it. At the top of the list was the Ra Material. I am so grateful that information was put up and I was able to google it. I can't imagine how different my life would be if I hadn't stumbled on that material via a google search.

If just one more person stumbles on the Ra Material and awakens because the wiki page is up and provides a coherent description of the material, I call that a helpful stepping stone for personal/spiritual evolution.

Once someone finds the material, it is up to their own discernment to resonate with any of the material or not.

---

I still don't understand why this is even up for debate? Yossarian provided the perfect example of why the article was just fine and not against their rules with his example of Harry Potter. Eg, you can't argue that Harry Potter is a character from a book that goes to the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. If you give a very simple description of major points the material provides (eg, there are 7 densities plus an 8th being the first density of the next octave) that are NOT debatable and use any reference that meets the requirements set by wikipedia for THIS TYPE of literature, then I don't see why we couldn't all agree on that?

---

Why don't we start from scratch and just go paragraph by paragraph collaboratively creating what we vote is an unbiased description of the material? It might take months or even years to come up with something that is coherent and as unbiased as possible, but I feel like we can do that.

[yossarian]

I opened a ticket today in Wikipedia's version of a help desk, posing the question of how to determine whether a published book is a candidate for having its own Wikipedia article. I was led into some circular reasoning, the user helping me using two pages of criteria, each attempting to reference the other, but what I determined ultimately is that Wikipedia is a proper fustercluck when it comes to determining what is a proper article or not. It is clear that in the case of a book such as the Ra material, it is a "majority rules" kind of situation, where a mob of users can jump into a discussion of whether an article's sources are reliable and sway the discussion one way or another based upon their own personal biases, ideals, and beliefs.

This creates a natural sort of mob mentality, group think environment, where the culture of Wikipedia is overwhelmingly material reductionist and so that will be reflected in what can be considered a "reliable source," despite the source meeting the (confusing and unclear) criteria provided.

So the overriding authority for Wikipedia isn't necessarily the reliability of the sources, not the clarity or effort put into the article, and hardly even the individual opinions of the users who discuss whether to delete or keep an article; it is the overwhelming ideal of material objectivism/reductionism within the Wikipedia culture. It's not surprising to me that any sort of article discussing the Law of One would have a difficult time persisting within such an environment. You can get a sense of the idealism of the culture in the deletion review discussion, where many of the users voting to delete use very charged and emotional language, revealing their passion for the ideals they are set to uphold.

So I guess my main question is why do those who wish to see the Law of One article upheld within this environment feel that way? What is the driving force behind the desire for there to be a Law of One wikipedia article at all? Especially if it is an uphill struggle against an idealistic culture.

It's a bit more complicated than you make it out to be. Wikipedia is a battlefield and the ground is always shifting. Policy debates do matter, and the mob rule is just one component of the power dynamic.

Think of wikipedia as a constant struggle between various factions to have their ideology at the top of Google Searches and Authoritated by the WIKIPEDIA brand--which people equate with accuracy.

Scientific materialists are powerful but by no means the most powerful group on wikipedia. The most powerful groups are actually paid professional teams who advance corporate, political, and religious interests. Wikipedia is actually dominated by massive corporations whose PR firms have a huge web of sub-contractors to ensure that wikipedia doesn't say stuff that might damage one of the paying corporations.

They also have a lot of professional religious editors--usually editing on behalf of the Templeton foundation or other American fundamentalist fascist movements.

The Church of Scientology pays their members to defend it on wikipedia.

You also have political interests--republicans and democrats hire wikipedia editing PR firms to make sure that their politicians aren't smeared and so on.

There are Israeli groups who are paid to advance the interests of Israel, especially over the israel-palestine conflict.

Then you have ideologues who work for free but are motivated by their cause: Atheists and Muslims in particular. The fights between Atheists and Muslims are basically epic.

There are weaker parties of New Agers who want to promote various New Age things. But New Agers are notorious for being bad at fighting and are not very organized and certainly have no money.

Our article--The Law of One--comes into conflict with the ideologues--the Atheists. None of the other groups care at all about us and don't mind if we exist. It's just the atheists who want to snuff out all coverage of spiritual topics, and since they can't beat the well-paid and well-organized Christians, and can't beat the fervor and intelligence and organization of Jews and Muslims, they attack mostly New Age stuff. They just want to make it all go away and will use any argument that has a chance of working.

There is an idea out there that atheists are smart. NOthing could be further from the truth. The atheists on wikipedia are the dumbest of all editors. The smartest of them all are the Israelis by far. But the Muslims, Christians, and Scientologists are all very smart too--way smarter than atheists who don't even read wikipedia policy.

---

So I guess my main question is why do those who wish to see the Law of One article upheld within this environment feel that way? What is the driving force behind the desire for there to be a Law of One wikipedia article at all? Especially if it is an uphill struggle against an idealistic culture.

I wrote the original article--which was very very simple--just for fun. I thought it would be fun. I wanted to contribute to wikipedia on a topic that I was knowledgeable about.

I don't try there anymore. Since getting acquainted with how editing works on wikipedia I no longer even read it--I bought a subscription to Britannica. Editing wikipedia taught me that professors are paid for a reason.

---

Oh yeah--the most important part of wikipedia warring is to have admins that you collaborate with. The wars between Christians and Atheists or Jews and Muslims are largely determined by how many admin troops each side can muster. In addition to having foot soldiers.

It's not just a simple mob rule... there is more to it than that. There are a lot of complicated power plays that can be made. One person can have a lot of power on a low-traffic page like ours if that person watches it like a hawk and constantly reverts any new edits made by anyone. This keeps the article quality and scares away deletionists. It would have prevented Adonai from doing what he did--vandalizing and then deleting.

---

Also... on a more crazy note... I wrote the article because Ra told me that a lot of people google The Law of One and wish there was a wikipedia page giving a short summary of all the details from a neutral, mainstream perspective. My original article was not very long.. maybe 1200 words.. and it just gave a super short summary of how the books were written and what the basic claims were.

Many months later it's been severely f***** up. This is because I didn't "babysit" it and make sure to revert each person's new edit. So people added in hundreds of terrible little edits that introduced everything from grammar errors to factual errors to poor wording that misunderstand policy.

Some people like Adonai One want to add "REPUTEDLY" and "ALLEGEDLY" all over the place. This is because they don't know wikipedia policy. Putting these scare words in is NOT required because the source of the claim is clearly stated.

So for instance my original article said something like "In her trance state, Carla would speak the words of Ra into a microphone."

People who don't know the rules then want to add "REPORTEDLY' and "CLAIMED" and "ALLEGED" all over the place. This is not needed because it has already been established that Ra's speaking through Carla is a claim made by the book. No one is being forced to accept the claim.

When I wrote the original article I actually read dozens and dozens of pages on wikipedia policy, editing style, etc. How to be neutral for a series of books, what counts as neutral, what should be covered. I put a lot of work into it.

Then Adonai One just comes along and thinks he is SO SPECIAL that he should just delete all that work I did. I have Adonai on ignore mode now so I don't have to read whatever crap he is saying above there.

[βαθμιαίος]

So I guess my main question is why do those who wish to see the Law of One article upheld within this environment feel that way? What is the driving force behind the desire for there to be a Law of One wikipedia article at all? Especially if it is an uphill struggle against an idealistic culture.

I agree with Yossarian that wikipedia isn't quite as uniform as you make it out to be, so the struggle isn't quite as uphill as you suggest. After all, the article has now been kept twice, and the deletion review upheld the second keep.

To answer your question, though, my thinking is this: If the Ra channelings happened as we believe they did, then they are a verifiable piece of evidence that the universe is far different from what many people have been led to believe. Don saw himself as a scientist and was careful to follow scientific procedures, and as a result we have an experiment reproduced over 100 times. It absolutely belongs on wikipedia, because it uses their methodology to blow their worldview to smithereens. (As it has done for all of us who started out as scientific materialists.)

[Adonai One]

So I guess my main question is why do those who wish to see the Law of One article upheld within this environment feel that way? What is the driving force behind the desire for there to be a Law of One wikipedia article at all? Especially if it is an uphill struggle against an idealistic culture.

I agree with Yossarian that wikipedia isn't quite as uniform as you make it out to be, so the struggle isn't quite as uphill as you suggest. After all, the article has now been kept twice, and the deletion review upheld the second keep.

To answer your question, though, my thinking is this: If the Ra channelings happened as we believe they did, then they are a verifiable piece of evidence that the universe is far different from what many people have been led to believe. Don saw himself as a scientist and was careful to follow scientific procedures, and as a result we have an experiment reproduced over 100 times. It absolutely belongs on wikipedia, because it uses their methodology to blow their worldview to smithereens. (As it has done for all of us who started out as scientific materialists.)

I came here a scientific materialist, contemplated ascension-based thinking, tested it against channeling entities, saw that this is a subjective science that needs incredible scrutiny of the highest caliber for the actual channeling, questions used during the channeling and interpretation of the channeling.

In the end, I came back to materialism and what the present moment offers right here and right now. I believe this perspective maximizes the amount of pleasure one can experience on this planet and in this species, not in putting doctrine, invisible worlds and invisible people above oneself. And I believe The Law of One, properly interpreted, does not offer this type of perspective: Clinging to ideals, practices not genuinely proven to the self in life experience.

I want to ensure the Wikipedia article does not only encourage dependency on ideals that exist outside the self through demanding reliable sources that accurately analyze the material. In recent times, the article has just been metaphysics and not actual life lessons.

[Spaced]

Isn't Ra material reductionist?

No, I don't think so at all. The Ra material is holistic.

Reductionism argues that the whole is the sum of it's parts and that understanding of the whole can be achieved through careful examination of the smallest parts, holism argues that the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts and that to understand the workings of the whole one must look at the big picture and contemplate the relationships between the various parts.

A reductionist would argue that the mind is simply the result of chemical exchanges and neurons firing, the Ra material states that the individual mind is the reflection of something greater, the archetypal mind, and that all thoughts are drawn from the original thought of the one infinite creator.

I don't personally see your quote about photons as being very persuasive as an argument that the Ra material is reductionist in nature. The photon may be the basic building block of our physical illusion, but these photons were set in motion by the original thought of the creator.

---

Now as for wikipedia, I don't really find it to be a credible source at all, so all this talk about wanting strict reliable source, aiming for accuracy, etc. is funny to me. Wikipedia is the playground of ideologues and people with agendas regarding the control of information. As a result wikipedia is full of misinformation. I don't really give a hoot if there is a Law of One article on wikipedia except for the fact that it might point people towards reading the material for themselves which I think would be a good thing.

I mean, why can't we have a page for the Law of One when there are pages for stuff like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friend_zone (one of the funniest/saddest talk pages on that article btw)? If you are so gung ho about preserving the accuracy of information on wikipedia Adonai, why not go through ALL the wikipedia pages you find inaccurate and preform the slash and burn/flag for deletion manoeuvre on them? Why just the Law of One page? Personally, it makes me think you are just one more ideologue with an agenda to push.

[Adonai One]

Every article I read, I make an effort to cull unreliable sources and add relevant tags. And if necessary, make a call for deletion. I don't read many articles outside of philosophy and logic, thus I don't really bother with much of this stuff.

Additionally, I don't believe anything is greater than anything. Thus I dump holism right on that notion. I just see centerless webs that tangle up in greater abstractions. Find the key knots that exist in every portion of the web and suddenly you can move the web as you please.

Every principle is derived from a single principle: The Law of One or rather ∀pTp as I term it in mainstream circles. I find this argument too subjective to continue without discussing actual citations of the material.

---

Show me where Ra ever argues for one thing being greater than another directly and then I'll discuss this.

[Spaced]

What do you think of the concept of the one infinite creator?

Also, how do you feel about this quote?

37.7 Questioner: Does each entity have an individual mind/body/spirit complex totality or do a number of entities share the same mind/body/spirit complex totality?

Ra: I am Ra. Both of these statements are correct given the appropriate time/space conditions. Each entity has its totality and at the point at which a planetary entity becomes a social memory complex the totality of this union of entities also has its Oversoul and its social memory complex totality as resource. As always, the sum, spiritually speaking, is greater than the sum of its parts so that the Oversoul of a social memory complex is not the sum of the Oversouls of its member entities but operates upon the way of what we have called squares and what we grasp you prefer to call doubling.

The doubling effect or the law of squares seems to show that the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts.

[Adonai One]

I interpret the meaning of that as the resonating qualities of souls exponentially grows in a group consensus. As for this application in regards to the universe, all or the "one infinite creator," I will admit that there is this exponential growth but it does not cause me to feel as if I am on unequal standing in comparison to the "creator" (all) nor do I feel the "creator" (all) is greater nor transcends a infinitesimal photon meaning-wise.

I will only say that I feel everything is on equal standing of value, meaning-wise. I do not believe Ra ever says something has more meaning, more value than another, especially all against a lone individual. This would contradict The Law of One, saying everything is unified and spiritually the same in the purest essence.