Do you guys actually believe this stuff?

[Account1]

This is why I said “generally respectful”. You are welcome to disagree and question, Account1. You are not welcome to speak to other members in negative judgment.

Yeah sorry about that

You have an idea in your head that Philosophy A leads to Behavior Pattern B, but I have not seen that bear out in the course of going on 15 years of personal experience.

I take it you never had the desire to work in psychiatry?

[βαθμιαίος]

I just have one question JLY, would you have any qualm with this material being false? Do you want it to be true? I'm not trying to logically trap you here I'm just curious.

Speaking for myself, I would love for the material to be false. It would make many things much easier. The fact that I can't write it off makes many of my relationships more challenging. Not on a surface level -- everything seems fine there -- but it introduces a gulf between myself and friends and family, and the gulf produces a feeling of sadness. This even though I pretty much never bring the material up with others.

[JustLikeYou]

Please forgive me and cease the wheel of karma from turning.

I'm not upset with you. I did, however, respond to your post as I read it (rather than read first, respond later), which left me somewhat disappointed because in the course of my reading, I began to feel more and more as if I was wasting my effort. I'll take responsibility for that. I know it is one of the drawbacks of my responding habits.

If you have legitimate concerns with the philosophy, I want to hear them. The criticism of others is the whetstone upon which I prefer to sharpen my own worldview.

I am a little curious as to your use of the concept of karma, despite your reservations about New Agey Stuff.

Also, "as far as the theory can go" is really quite far, Larsons theory is large in scope and accounts for a lot of what Ra says to be true in book II, you can't just dismiss it. Also Ra did say Geller was the real deal and the phenomenon is possible under Ra's model, so are you cherry picking or do you believe Geller can bend spoons with his mind?

I don't dismiss it entirely. I dismiss it as needing to be a robust condender for a practical scientific theory. If it is not, then that is "as far as the theory can go." Frankly, I also don't know enough about it to say much more. I'm interested, but only because Ra affirms it.

Also Ra did say Geller was the real deal and the phenomenon is possible under Ra's model, so are you cherry picking or do you believe Geller can bend spoons with his mind?

I know Carla and Jim. They tell stories of Geller's spoonbending and they even keep some of the spoons as a souvenir. I know them to be trustworthy, so I believe the story and anything else is simply irrelevant to my belief. Geller could have been stark raving mad for all I care. What I know is that Carla and Jim witnessed him spoonbending.

I just have one question JLY, would you have any qualm with this material being false? Do you want it to be true? I'm not trying to logically trap you here I'm just curious.

This is the rub.

None of the above conversation really matters. It genuinely has no bearing on my perspective whether Ra turns out to be a man behind the curtain. I make heavy use of the worldview Ra presents, but not because I hope it is true or because I desperately want a more fantastical picture of life to stave off the daily ho-hum of eat/sleep/sex/work.

The measure of a theory its is practical application. With a charitable mind, I brought this philosophy into my world. I acted as if it were true, testing claims on an individual basis to see which of Ra's claims actually had relevance to my experience.

I have no data to present to you because this was an entirely subjective experience. Ra talks about a choice between STS and STO. So I payed attention in my experience to see where I was choosing, how it impacted my experience, and whether the choice was actually necessary.

I haven't addressed every single one of Ra's metaphysical claims, but every claim I've found conclusive (personal) results concerning has been accurate. I have yet to prove Ra wrong, despite my efforts--especially when, as βαθμιαίος descibes, I sometimes want Ra to be wrong.

So I really don't know how to answer your question. I don't have any qualm with anything being false, but I don't think the question makes sense given my perspective.

Do you have any qualms with the law of gravity being false?

You have amassed data concerning this law which crystallizes a conviction in you that what the "law of gravity" names something real. The specific details of how it works and how it relates to other aspects of physical reality may not be exactly as contemporary scientific theories say, but the phenomenon is not going to go away and any explanation of it will still look roughly like F=(GMm)/(d^2).

And so it is with the Law of One. Ra's description of this system may not be relevant in 100 years, but it names many, many things which my experience has shown me to be real phenomena.

So it doesn't matter to me if Ra is replaced by something else (in fact, I'd like that. Ra is a pain in the ass sometimes), but I find it ludicrous to suggest that the entire philosophy has no bearing on the world we experience (not that you are suggesting this).

[Unbound]

I see the Ra Material as a big hill of dirt needing to be mined for gems. The material as a whole is incredibly scattered, but there are bits and pieces here and there which hold some great beauty, others are "transient" as Ra would say (and indeed as they say for many of the things Don asked about).

However, I have noticed that you are interested and seem to work from a concept of archetypes and gestalts in the mind as well, so since you have read all the books, do you find the archetypal concepts Ra expresses to represent the same archetypes as Jung and others? (Referring to the 22 Tarot Archetypes)

---

To clarify why I mean, Ra proposes 7 functional Archetypes of the Mind they dub the Matrix, the Potentiator, the Significator, the Catalyst, the Experience, the Transformation and the Great Way, do you see these as reflective of other concepts of archetypes or to be different? I wonder as these archetypes appear to be functional, they serve a purpose and activity, and I wonder if the Jungian (to use one framework) and other archetypes also reflect a similar idea of activity in consciousness?

[Adonai One]

ITT: We feel offended when somebody doesn't validate our fringe, new age beliefs.

[Nicholas]

I've met Carla. There is no way she invented this, conscious or unconscious

You can never be sure of what lies in someone's unconscious, to do so is very naive.

If I may but meetings of the heart do not involve the mind, authentic communication usually precedes authentic contact. Therefore I assume TLY to be speaking metaphorically in an attempt to satisfy your stated "curiosity".

Your use of the word naïve hints that this is an encounter you are unfamiliar with?

[Patrick]

Do you guys actually believe this stuff?

If so, could you please tell me why?
...

Simple, this "stuff" sounds truer to me than anything else I have ever read... and I am a science oriented person to begin with.

[Adonai One]

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"}

I am confused as to how people who have a certain belief in this stuff wouldn't go as far to consider it knowledge, science, certain, predictable.

[Stranger]

The problem I inevitably see with these kinds of critiques is that critics evaluate the teachings in the abstract, on their intellectual merits. They are not abstract systems of equations, they are not meant to be appreciated for their aesthetic value, they are meant to be applied to one's life.

To that end, I invite any critic of the Law of One, Christianity or Buddhism to actually spend a few months actively and intentionally generating goodwill and kindness toward ALL others in ALL circumstances, and experience for themselves what transformation they undergo should they succeed in their attempt.

(No, goodwill doesn't mean letting convicted killers roam the streets or other such strawman nonsense. It means acting out of the concern for the well-being of all others, no matter their behavior, which would include ensuring that convicted killers do not get to repeat their acts, etc. etc. etc. etc.)

[Adonai One]

I think to say the point of The Law of One is to teach goodwill and kindness is a bit of a very condensed point to the point of meaninglessness. Even the atheists advocate that. Why does anyone need to believe in aliens building pyramids that allow you to ascend to "higher vibrations" to be kind?

[native]

Speaking for myself, I would love for the material to be false. It would make many things much easier. The fact that I can't write it off makes many of my relationships more challenging. Not on a surface level -- everything seems fine there -- but it introduces a gulf between myself and friends and family, and the gulf produces a feeling of sadness. This even though I pretty much never bring the material up with others.

I've come to feel this sadness as well, and other less than positive feelings in general. I think it's pointing to various things worth examining. It may be indicative of hidden emotions..what we could also call attitudes behind thoughts themselves. Beliefs can have the quality of separating ourselves from others. So I think this sadness is related to the importance we place on our beliefs, which can turn our attention towards the ways in which we are different, rather than experiencing unity in the moment.

[Adonai One]

Beliefs only cause gulfs when we expect our beliefs to apply to others directly.

[native]

I agree..that's part of what I meant by importance.

[Account1]

I don't dismiss it entirely. I dismiss it as needing to be a robust condender for a practical scientific theory. If it is not, then that is "as far as the theory can go." Frankly, I also don't know enough about it to say much more. I'm interested, but only because Ra affirms it.

I think you’ve read it a little too charitably my friend...

20.7 ↥ Questioner: Just as a sideline, a side question here: Is the physics of Dewey Larson correct?
Ra: I am Ra. The physics of sound vibrational complex Dewey is a correct system as far as it is able to go. There are those things which are not included in this system. However, those coming after this particular entity, using the basic concepts of vibration and the study of vibrational distortions, will begin to understand that which you know of as gravity and those things you consider as “n” dimensions. These things are necessary to be included in a more universal, shall we say, physical theory.

Ra didn’t mean “if it isn’t correct than than that’s far as it goes” this is Ra saying that it is correct as far as what it currently implies and that their model goes further, which is suspect, Larson is regarded as a crank and you can’t believe in the LOO without believing in Larson as Ra’s model is an extension of his.

Ra is using concept of magnetism here. The idea is that the complex self has many elements in it which are oriented STS (south), STO (north) or in some other direction entirely, just like the magnetic orientation of particles in a body. These metaphysical particles (if you will) are nodes in the psyche, areas of specific (in a simple particle) or broad (in a complex particle) concern. So think of your individual relationships with others, the various traits you do or don't like about yourself and others, etc., etc.

Metaphysical particles in the self can be either intentionally or accidentally polarized. Accidental polarization is a state of consciousness reached without knowing how you got there. So some event happens, a crisis, say, and everything clarifies for you and you know exactly what to do without all the emotional baggage you'd usually have. This is like placing a body in the field of a strong magnet. The body will temporarily polarize, but once the strong magnet is removed, the body will rapidly lose its polarization.

Intentional polarization is the mechanism of consciously finding each metaphysical element (i.e. knowing yourself) and orienting it either North or South. The method of changing the polarity of a metaphysical particle of self differs depending on direction. The north direction requires acceptance of the particle in reference to both self and other; whereas the south direction requires authority over the particle in self and other.

You might keep in mind that Ra treats the non-physical reality as if it has a set of natural laws just like those studied by physicists in the physical reality. These laws are simply there. They do not explain themselves (though Ra does); they simply give reality the structure it has. We observe them and record their consistency. These natural laws of the metaphysical reality are the same laws that religions have been attempting to enunciate for as far back as history remembers. Just as Aristotle got lots of things wrong in his physical description, so we should expect that even the most prominent spiritual figures in history may not have gotten it all right.

At first glance this looked impressive, on second glance like hippy babble, on third glance like a product of free association allowed by a cosmic philosophy that does discriminate fact from fiction and on fourth glance impressive again lol. Would you mind providing some quotes from the material to back up this interpretation?

The problem with “laws of non physical reality” is that are not observable so we’re just taking Ra’s word for it really, which is highly suspect and allows for a lot of “hey I can make up my own stuff”.

Do you have any qualms with the law of gravity being false?

Well the theory of gravity is an explanation of an observable phenomenon that has allowed us to build bridges and put men on the moon and as a component of Newtonian mechanics has elevated man’s understanding of the observable universe astronomically. The LOO is a theory of unobservable, unfalsifiable and unprovable events that allows people to dissociate themselves from reality. Not a great analogy...

The Law of One (or the "all is one" sentiment as you call it) is not the principle that any plurality can be grouped into a whole. It is that the whole is One without differentiation, that these differentiations are illusory (illusory does not mean "non-existent"; it means "incorrectly perceived"). And, according to Ra's cosmogenesis, the creation begins with a mystery: the One became many through the mysterious onset of awareness. That is, the One discovered itself as Subject to itself as Object. This distinction is the basic premise on which the material world could be produced by something that is indivisibly one.

As you know, a subject contains its object in itself in a multitude of ways: we project our baises upon others, we construct phenomenological accounts of our experience; we seek meaning in a world that never told us it had meaning. Similarly, the object also contains the subject: there is no way to distinguish the perceiving self from the reality it observes. The two are inextricably linked.

If all existence is built around this one discovery, then it should not be surprising that the Law of One has the property of holography. The identity between human and universe, however, is not one which is meant to be perceived within this specific illusion: the whole point was to experience the many, not to remember the One without any effort.

I know that is not regarding a grouped plurality, if you go back to what I said the greatest “whole” would include all parts as integral components essential for that whole’s to be regarded as whatever it is. And from that cosmic standpoint where everything is one yes, human experience would be an an illusion as the human does not experience things ”as they truly are” (to use some hippy speak) but rather filtrated subjective experience instead of experiencing the whole universe as the whole universe. But the problem with that is the assumption that the universe is conscious (or harbours some modality consciousness), which is a fairly huge assumption and I hope you can see my gripes with that.

The construction of meaning is usually assigned due to perceived necessity (the judgement of value), people don’t actually “seek” meaning as they are the one’s that in reality assign it. To assume inherent meaning is to what I personally believe to be regressive.
The cosmology of the “One” becoming conscious of itself, subject to the object and object to the subject at once is another archaic mythology, I don’t find it particularly compelling as an explanation of the origins of the universe, I am sorry but I could not honestly harbour such an opinion as it is to simple and magical (loose ends of causality all bundled up together under transcendent cosmic principles), it has a certain elegance and I get the appeal but I do think it regressive. The simplest way to process a given situation is to assume someone desired it to be so...

What is recognized by all of these perspectives is the existence of some kind of transition from this experience to another. All of these systems are attempting to articulate a natural metaphysical law (an archetype).

Yes but the Ra material’s interpretation of this archetype is that it is a real, transcendent phenomenon. Don’t just dismiss it, do you think that you will be assessed according to your violet vibration to see if you qualify for a more advanced experience of the universe?

The hero is an archetype. It names a natural law embedded into the structure of the human mind. That it is expressed by many cultures is what one would expect.

Yes, but do you believe in wanderers, an integral component of the Ra Material? You’ve agreed that these things are representations of archetypes but the Ra Material says that they are real things and you agree with the Ra Material so I’m curious if you believe in these supposed events.

"[I]t accounts for everything ever" is not something I can intelligently respond to.

“Law of One” “everything [indefinite] is one [definite]” it accounts for everything, everything is included under that “one”, I didn’t think this would be confusing. Ra’s model not only accounts for how the universe was created (love and light differentiating themselves) but everything observable could be held under the lens of the Ra Material.

I am a little curious as to your use of the concept of karma, despite your reservations about New Agey Stuff.

Primitive theory of causation that arose at a time when mental and physical phenomena had no significant distinction (magical thinking).

I know Carla and Jim. They tell stories of Geller's spoonbending and they even keep some of the spoons as a souvenir. I know them to be trustworthy, so I believe the story and anything else is simply irrelevant to my belief. Geller could have been stark raving mad for all I care. What I know is that Carla and Jim witnessed him spoonbending.

So you believe it’s possible, even if Carla and don were duped the Ra Material holds the phenomena possible so do you believe it?

[Adonai One]

Well the theory of gravity is an explanation of an observable phenomenon that has allowed us to build bridges and put men on the moon and as a component of Newtonian mechanics has elevated man’s understanding of the observable universe astronomically. The LOO is a theory of unobservable, unfalsifiable and unprovable events that allows people to dissociate themselves from reality. Not a great analogy...

Winner.

[Account1]

Therefore I assume TLY to be speaking metaphorically in an attempt to satisfy your stated "curiosity".

What reason would I have to assume that he was speaking metaphorically? Why not just take it it a step further and say everything is a metaphor? Is this meeting a metaphor for the exploration of self through self or some other hippy bs?

To that end, I invite any critic of the Law of One, Christianity or Buddhism to actually spend a few months actively and intentionally generating goodwill and kindness toward ALL others in ALL circumstances, and experience for themselves what transformation they undergo should they succeed in their attempt.

I'm just going to stab in the dark and assume that you believe that I have not done so and continue to do so?

I have stated that I believe that the notions proposed in the Ra Material are capable of causing unhealthy worldviews and behaviour in individuals, now why would I come here if I believed that? Would it be to flaunt my intellect, yes that's why I must focus on the intellectual abstractions not because I am concerned for the well being of people and would like to voice an opinion that usually gets drowned out in semi cultish echo chambers like this...

Simple, this "stuff" sounds truer to me than anything else I have ever read... and I am a science oriented person to begin with.

Are you educated in the philosophy of science? Do you have any empirical justification for believing that aliens built the pyramids, altered human dna, that lincoln had two souls (that souls exist), that entire universe is a conscious being, that matter is light, that light is a differentiation of "love", that love is underlying dynamic force of the universe, that free will even exists and is a universal principle in the process and structure of the universe?

[JustLikeYou]

Ra didn’t mean “if it isn’t correct than than that’s far as it goes” this is Ra saying that it is correct as far as what it currently implies and that their model goes further, which is suspect, Larson is regarded as a crank and you can’t believe in the LOO without believing in Larson as Ra’s model is an extension of his.

Okay, let me put it a little more plainly. I get to choose to believe whatever I like. I can appropriate as much of Ra's philosophy as I want without committing to Larson. When I read Larson thoroughly, I'll decide how I feel about him. Until then, I am not going to make a judgment one way or another about whether he is a crank. Mainstream culture does not dictate my worldview. I do.

Would you mind providing some quotes from the material to back up this interpretation?

I wouldn't mind, but I'm afraid I don't have much to offer. I've scoured the material over many times in order to milk things out of it that Ra never said. In other words, I've been charitably interpreting. The interpretation you're asking about has emerged from two aspects of the Ra Material: 1. Ra uses the term "polarize" consistently with this interpretation; 2. Don was a physicist and Ra often used technical terms that Don would be sure to understand. I have therefore judged that polarity is likely to be one of them.

The problem with “laws of non physical reality” is that are not observable

They are observable, just not by physical means. The problem is that scientists assume that the univese is physical; therefore, they only look for physical stuff and the only evidence that counts is physical. This is a real problem.

allows for a lot of “hey I can make up my own stuff

Yep, I get to do that. But, as I've already said, it's not just made up. I experiment with my non-physical experience to determine the proportions and relationship between, emotions, thoughts and other experiences not reducible to matter. I have no interest in providing data that is scientifically compelling to others; I'm only interested in discovering accurate relationships. This begins with naming and ends with continuous reiteration of experiments. The ultimate standard is whether principle X put to practical use via method Y results in an observable change. That I am the only one who can observe this change is simply the nature of the metaphysical beast.

Well the theory of gravity is an explanation of an observable phenomenon that has allowed us to build bridges and put men on the moon and as a component of Newtonian mechanics has elevated man’s understanding of the observable universe astronomically. The LOO is a theory of unobservable, unfalsifiable and unprovable events that allows people to dissociate themselves from reality. Not a great analogy...

Will you please stop using the pejoratives? They add nothing to the discussion and they ruin rapport between interlocutors.

Your statement is only true under the assumption that only that which is physically measurable is observable. You have defined this subject matter as being inherently nonsensical because you have chosen not to imagine what would count as evidence if not something physically observable. Your own emotional states are evidence. If you pay careful enough attention to them, you will discover that they have a distinct topography, that each emotion is different from another, that they fall into categories, that they cluster into groups, etc. Just like physical particles.

The only reason non-physical data is considered "unobservable" is that we have allowed ourselves to be insensitive to non-physical data. It would be as if we only ever pay attentioned to our senses of vision when our lives were threatened. The data would seem much more chaotic and amorphous if this were the case.

In order for a genuine scientific conversation about emotions, we would need a much more refined vocabulary and a habit of paying attention to emotions even when they are not that strong. Culturally, we are a long way off from this, but doesn't mean I can't do it myself.

But the problem with that is the assumption that the universe is conscious (or harbours some modality consciousness), which is a fairly huge assumption and I hope you can see my gripes with that.

I see your gripe because I remember having it myself. However, the extreme organization of life on planet earth is a statistical impossibility, and by that I mean that it is absurdly unlikely. This unlikelihood has been swept under the rug by Darwinians by virtue of bad math. It is imagined that in an infinite universe with infinite time, all possibilities, no matter how unlikely, will manifest. Not many people make this argument, but it is the only one that can possibly defend the straightfaced Darwinian claim that evolution is random. Unfortunately for the Darwinians, we have three dimensions of space and only one of time, which means that the infinity of possibilities is larger by a power of three than the infinity of time for manifesting these possibilities.

So, given the silliness of random evolution, we must conclude that evolution is designed by some conscious being. This causal change must necessarily regress back to the universe itself.

The construction of meaning is usually assigned due to perceived necessity (the judgement of value), people don’t actually “seek” meaning as they are the one’s that in reality assign it. To assume inherent meaning is to what I personally believe to be regressive.

You are begging the question. Where do people get their values? What informs this assignment of meaning? Instinct? That's what animals have. People have archetypes. This is ultimately the source of meaning.

The cosmology of the “One” becoming conscious of itself, subject to the object and object to the subject at once is another archaic mythology

Yes, it is archaic, but I think they got this one right. In terms of first philosophy, this cosmogenesis principle is the only way to make a monism work. I have found that monism is a philosophy worth preserving (due to other ideological benefits), so I'm happy to adopt this cosmogenesis in order to make it work.

it has a certain elegance and I get the appeal but I do think it regressive.

It's not regressive; it's a mystery. Impossible to get beneath. I'm cool with that. We need mystery sometimes.

Yes but the Ra material’s interpretation of this archetype is that it is a real, transcendent phenomenon. Don’t just dismiss it, do you think that you will be assessed according to your violet vibration to see if you qualify for a more advanced experience of the universe?

Sure. I like that story. I've always been a fan of sci-fi. But I really don't care that much. It's a good enough story for me to adopt as a mythology, but I'm not attached to its reality. If a better story comes along, I'll adopt that one instead.

You seem to have an all-or-nothing attitude about this stuff. Scientists don't take that attitude, so why should I? If the theory works, I buy into it; I trust it. But I am not going to commit myself to it dogmatically. That doesn't serve anyone.

Yes, but do you believe in wanderers, an integral component of the Ra Material? You’ve agreed that these things are representations of archetypes but the Ra Material says that they are real things and you agree with the Ra Material so I’m curious if you believe in these supposed events.

Also a good story. Fits with my experience, but I'm not going to commit to this one either. Maybe Ra's story is a cartoon picture of the way things really are. All mythologies are. And so are all scientific models.

“Law of One” “everything [indefinite] is one [definite]” it accounts for everything, everything is included under that “one”, I didn’t think this would be confusing. Ra’s model not only accounts for how the universe was created (love and light differentiating themselves) but everything observable could be held under the lens of the Ra Material.

I see. I thought you were saying that the wanderer thesis accounts for everything ever. Sure, the Law of One is supposed to account for everything ever. As a systematic philosopher I am always trying to account for everything ever, so it works for me.

So you believe it’s possible, even if Carla and don were duped the Ra Material holds the phenomena possible so do you believe it?

Sure, I think that's possible. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." I've seen enough to know that the standard skeptical materialist story is just not enough to describe the world we inhabit. What you call magical thinking is certainly prevalent among many New Age types, but underneath the wishy-washy magical free-association is a set of principles which are simply not known. Spoon-bending and other such novelties are to us what lightning may have been to a previous age: the inconceivable impact of heaven upon earth. But it's really not so inconceivable; it's just not known well enough to replicate reliably.

[GentleReckoning]

Obvious troll is obvious.

[Account1]

So, given the silliness of random evolution, we must conclude that evolution is designed by some conscious being. This causal change must necessarily regress back to the universe itself.

The teleological argument was abandoned by academics for a reason man.

Your statement is only true under the assumption that only that which is physically measurable is observable. You have defined this subject matter as being inherently nonsensical because you have chosen not to imagine what would count as evidence if not something physically observable. Your own emotional states are evidence. If you pay careful enough attention to them, you will discover that they have a distinct topography, that each emotion is different from another, that they fall into categories, that they cluster into groups, etc. Just like physical particles.

And different emotional states have corresponding physical correlations such as chemical release and stimulation of certain areas in the brain. I'd say it's a pretty worthy assumption. I'm not saying the universe is 100% mechanistic but your example of a non physical observation isn't quite true.

Obvious troll is obvious.

Convenient way to ignore what I say is obvious.

Have interviews, will be back later

[Adonai One]

The only reason to believe in the soul in a heavily attached manner (not I) is intuitive comfort, that the self has meaning beyond its current existence. The self-assured man, the self-declared humanist has no need for this meaning as he finds his meaning inherent.

[Sagittarius]

Speaking for myself, I would love for the material to be false. It would make many things much easier. The fact that I can't write it off makes many of my relationships more challenging. Not on a surface level -- everything seems fine there -- but it introduces a gulf between myself and friends and family, and the gulf produces a feeling of sadness. This even though I pretty much never bring the material up with others.

I've come to feel this sadness as well, and other less than positive feelings in general. I think it's pointing to various things worth examining. It may be indicative of hidden emotions..what we could also call attitudes behind thoughts themselves. Beliefs can have the quality of separating ourselves from others. So I think this sadness is related to the importance we place on our beliefs, which can turn our attention towards the ways in which we are different, rather than experiencing unity in the moment.

Or perhaps the sadness comes from a lack of acceptance towards separation. The sadness is the soul it's a warning that another cycle will be perpetuated.

[native]

I've considered that, but I'm not sure. It started happening after a worldview was heavily invested in, in what seemed like full acceptance. My feelings/intuition suggest that it's a reminder to come back to the heart, valuing empathy, rather than focusing on wisdom and belief. I just want others to be happy, and "communicate acceptance". I think we're moving into a reality supported by the emotions we project, and the emotional quality of thought communicated to others.

[andreazzi]

If so, could you please tell me why?

Edit: I don't mean to offend I'm just curious

I believe in the Ra Material because it has explained ALL the strange events that had happened to me during my 35 years of experience in this world. And further, it fills all the metaphysical gaps left behind by any other religion or philosophy.

Anyway, I understand the skeptics for if I didn't have had so many strange events in my own life I would certainly consider the Ra material too fantastic to be true. The same happens to UFOs, you don't consider the subject seriously untill you have your own experience.

Everyone has a path to follow, it is all just a matter of finding yours. The Law of One is definitively mine and I thank the Creator, Ra, Don, Carla and Jim for this HUGE treasure of mine.

[JustLikeYou]

The teleological argument was abandoned by academics for a reason man.

You know, my ego really flared up in response to this one. I usually stop listening whenever I hear someone deploying an argument for the existence of God (doesn't matter which), so I was pretty appalled to see my self doing that very thing. Thanks for the catalyst.

As far as God (the One Infinite Creator) is concerned, argument is useless. Experience is all that matters here, and you have either had an experience or you haven't. My guess is that you haven't, but I'm willing to be surprised.

Two comments on the teleological argument I used:
1. It was not meant to prove anything. I was trying to outline the trouble with the random evolution (and biogenesis) model: it is a desperate move by those unwilling to entertain the notion that life and consciousness are properties of the universe, not accidents.
2. The problems with the teleological argument revolve around using it to support the existence of the Judeo-Christian God. The argument as I was using it was not meant to prove a designer God; rather, it was meant to show the greater internal consistency of the conscious universe model.

The inevitability of evolution and the persistence of life on planet Earth are much more consonant with the concept of a (greater) living organism than an accidental phenomenon.

But I don't really expect any of this to sway you. Arguments, after all, can't deliver anything true. They only separate the inconsistent and/or inaccurate from the consistent and/or accurate.

And different emotional states have corresponding physical correlations such as chemical release and stimulation of certain areas in the brain.

You're reducing the phenomenon.

Consider my thought-experiment world where emotions are much clearer than vision (call it Tralfamadore). Suppose the Tralfamadorians have such a rich vocabulary for their emotions and such a keen ability to detect the emotions others are feeing, that they are able to describe reality in terms of emotions. Now, because they still have the sense of touch they can describe the physical world, but this description is rendered in emotional terms. So their anatomy gives a robust account of the emotional layers of the human body (for which we have tragically few words and they are all clunky, like "aura" and "emotional body"), but because they don't pay much attention to vision, their account of the detailed workings of the physical organs is lacking. They can handle trauma because their sense of touch makes it obvious that a leg is broken, for example. Nevertheless, it is quite evident to Tralfamadorian scientists that all sicknesses can be traced back to an emotional problem, a blockage, a misdirect, an imbalance, or some other malfunction that we don't have a word for.

Among the Tralfamadorians, there is a small group of people who have made intentional efforts to cultivate vision. These people, the Vision Cult, think that vision has much more potential than most Tralfamadorians realize. They think it has the power to open up a whole vista of previously unimagined technology. But most Tralfamadorians, for whom vision is just a red alert system, laugh off the Vision Cult. They make jokes about the fuzzy language that the Vision Cult uses for describing what they claim to experience and they demand sophisticated evidence from them. The Vision Cult, of course, has no sophisticated evidence because they have no vocabulary, they have atrophied eyes, and they have trouble agreeing on what they see. So the rest of the Tralfamadorians are happy to reduce the experience of vision to emotions, like they usually do.

Once again, I'm not asserting an argument, just undermining your objection. According to Ra's account, body is intricately intertwined with mind, which suggests that any mental and/or spiritual experience would be expected to produce corresponding changes in the body.

----------------------------------------------------

So I finally read the whole thread. Would have been better if I'd started out that way, but oh well.

I found this:

I am an atheist

and this:

this book is useless for me personally, though I am not a utilitarian I can't deny I have no use for it.

So I was wondering, "Well what the hell are you doing here, then?" And then you said this:

Would it be to flaunt my intellect, yes that's why I must focus on the intellectual abstractions not because I am concerned for the well being of people and would like to voice an opinion that usually gets drowned out in semi cultish echo chambers like this

Now I understand. You have a problem with the people who have this experience:

1. The self congratulatory self appointed title of "seeker", variations include "truth seeker" and "awake" (as opposed to the "sleeping" aka people who do not hold the same beliefs), as the individual progresses on this journey they will eventually label themselves with many identities (you would think the spiritually enlightened would have found themselves) my personal fav was guy who called himself "the lantern bearer" shining light the world lol.

2. A certain excitement at having widened one's scope of what could be conceived to be possible sweeps over the individual which often results in them becoming a slave to their own imagination as the fantasies they entertain are suddenly much more plausible given that the individual now believes that anything is possible or everything is true. This allows for rampant escapism which is essentially regression.

3. The individual feels that the thoughts they stumble upon are now cosmic insights that need to be shared with the world as they are now "awake" and have a moral duty to enlighten others.

4. The individual slowly becomes more and more dissociated, drunk on the belief that they are witness to a transcendental experience of existence, common experience gets interpreted through magical thinking which fuels the fantasy which fuels the dissociation. The individual withdraws more and more into themselves and their own constructed little world.

5. Everyone else is wrong apart from them and the ideas they concocted without any feedback since others are trapped in the material maze. The dismissal of the scientific method occasionally happens but I've seen just as many people try and twist scientific discovery to suit their transcendent agenda, these people almost never understand science.

You think that people should not be subjected to this experience. And you think that any material that helps to induce it needs to be crusaded against. And so here you are crusading. That is very noble of you. I appreciate how motivated you are to do what you see as right.

The problem, as I mentioned at the beginning of this post, is that you lack experience. You are an atheist. That is fine. Be an atheist. Live an atheist and die an atheist if you like. But do not pretend that you understand people who are fervently spiritual, people who claim to be "awakened". When/if you have an experience of your own, you will know.

The space-cadet hippies you see who are influenced by new age literature are usually people who have recently had an awakening experience. They are spiritual babies, and many of them will stay spiritual babies for a long time. When you see these people, you are witnessing a normal phase in the process of a human being becoming a well-grounded spiritual person. They are not mature yet, so please forgive them. They will eventually learn that fuzzy thinking does not deliver on all of its promises.

Yes, the Ra Material does provoke these kinds of attitudes, but these attitudes are not any more unhealthy than young adult hedonism.

With all of that said, I don't really want to discuss the philosophy anymore. The data sets with which you and I are working are incongruent. You are welcome to respond--and I'll read your responses. Maybe I'll even want to continue, I don't know. Either way, you gave me the opportunity to articulate some things I'd never committed to black and white before. Thank you for that.

[Adonai One]

Would it be to flaunt my intellect, yes that's why I must focus on the intellectual abstractions not because I am concerned for the well being of people and would like to voice an opinion that usually gets drowned out in semi cultish echo chambers like this

I support this endeavor. It's quite altruistic.

[Account1]

You think that people should not be subjected to this experience. And you think that any material that helps to induce it needs to be crusaded against. And so here you are crusading. That is very noble of you. I appreciate how motivated you are to do what you see as right.

It's not too much of a crusade to be honest, I don't go forum to forum book to book this all just happened coincidentally. I figured why not? It's been interesting

The problem, as I mentioned at the beginning of this post, is that you lack experience. You are an atheist. That is fine. Be an atheist. Live an atheist and die an atheist if you like. But do not pretend that you understand people who are fervently spiritual, people who claim to be "awakened". When/if you have an experience of your own, you will know.

Yes, how dare I pretend I understand the deeply spiritual lol. I have seen the face of god and all that bs it's interesting that to you being an atheist is almost equivalent to just ignorance. Spirituality is a modality of appreciation, I enjoy existence as long as I stay honest with myself. The "all knowing" attitude I find to be dishonest...

[Adonai One]

If I can say something on this, I consider myself an atheist even though I consider the possibility of this material being somewhat true. I do not see any indicative of a true god-like figure in The Law of One other than the self and the universe. In fact, the means and ends of Ra's cosmology are just simply a Big Crunch and another Big Bang.

[AnthroHeart]

And hopefully with the other big bang we'll be creating universes or at least suns.

[Account1]

Okay, let me put it a little more plainly. I get to choose to believe whatever I like. I can appropriate as much of Ra's philosophy as I want without committing to Larson. When I read Larson thoroughly, I'll decide how I feel about him. Until then, I am not going to make a judgment one way or another about whether he is a crank. Mainstream culture does not dictate my worldview. I do.

If you're going to read Larson read Samuel Alexander first. Yeah you do get to choose you're own beliefs but having LOO without even bothering to read or understand Larson seems incredibly inconsistent.

Also a good story. Fits with my experience, but I'm not going to commit to this one either. Maybe Ra's story is a cartoon picture of the way things really are. All mythologies are. And so are all scientific models.

To suggest all models have the same amount of truth though is ridiculous.

You're reducing the phenomenon.

I was stating a fact, you are expanding the phenomenon to include things which aren't there

They are observable, just not by physical means. The problem is that scientists assume that the univese is physical; therefore, they only look for physical stuff and the only evidence that counts is physical. This is a real problem.

What's your alternative?

You know, my ego really flared up in response to this one. I usually stop listening whenever I hear someone deploying an argument for the existence of God (doesn't matter which), so I was pretty appalled to see my self doing that very thing. Thanks for the catalyst.

Haha no worries, understandable that.

---

The problem with this hammering on about personal experience is that the experience is interpreted (thus remaining subjective) and new age/LoO interpretations often get unhealthy and concerning. I have seen very "ordinary" experience get interpreted in a "I'm an alien/ my soul family is watching me/ that must be spirits/ I was meditating and now I know everything" kinda stuff.

[Parsons]

You think that people should not be subjected to this experience. And you think that any material that helps to induce it needs to be crusaded against. And so here you are crusading. That is very noble of you. I appreciate how motivated you are to do what you see as right.

You stole the word right out of my head. Crusader: "A person who campaigns vigorously for political, social, or religious change; a campaigner." Thanks for using it.

However I don't really agree with your sentiments that it is a noble pursuit. Forgive me if you are being sarcastic, but I don't find this behavior "having or showing fine personal qualities or high moral principles and ideals". This is the same behavior of religious zealots telling you will 'burn in hell' for "xyz" reason. Science/mainstream institutions has its fair share of zealots (or 'crusaders'), and this is a prime example. This thread is an attempt to 'convert the heathens'.

The space-cadet hippies you see who are influenced by new age literature are usually people who have recently had an awakening experience. They are spiritual babies, and many of them will stay spiritual babies for a long time. When you see these people, you are witnessing a normal phase in the process of a human being becoming a well-grounded spiritual person. They are not mature yet, so please forgive them. They will eventually learn that fuzzy thinking does not deliver on all of its promises.

Yes, the Ra Material does provoke these kinds of attitudes, but these attitudes are not any more unhealthy than young adult hedonism.

I agree and well said.