Biased view of STS...and INFINITY

[Monica]

my existence, along with all the entities existing in this universe, and along with all the entities existing outside this universe but affecting it, and the entities which are wherever they are but affecting those entities that are affecting the entities affecting this universe, are all creating and defining this universe.

I agree. But that's not infinity, because infinity includes all, which means it's already been affected and created, from infinity's perspective. From OUR perspective, we're still affecting and creating.

I said your existence defines the universe AS YOU EXPERIENCE IT... If you don't exist there is no experience for you. If your existence changes then the other entities that are affecting the universe affect your experience in a different way.

Agreed. This is why the concept of predetermined fate has no relevance to us. Whether 'God' already knows what will happen to us, is irrelevant to us, because we still have to live it. From OUR perspective, our choices do indeed matter, and we affect one another. Our perspective of reality changes according to our choices.

Therefore YOU define the rest of the universe.

Very true. But from OUR perspective. Not from the perspective of infinity.

It could be argued that infinity's perspective doesn't matter to us. But for whatever reason, that seems to be the topic of this discussion.

the bird, regardless of my or its perspective, still exists, even in the manner you speak about.

Existence is relative, something exists relative to you.

I'm with Ali on this one. It is purely speculative that the bird might still exist. We don't know that. We are all relative to one another.

Maybe the bird does still exist. We don't know and have no way of knowing.

It could be argued that wildlife exists that we don't know about. But it must be taken into consideration that 3D reality is consensual. The total reality is based on the experiences of all entities on Earth, not just us. We're all creating polar bears and birds and deep sea fish, collectively.

It could be argued that, when we find million-year-old fossils, those animals existed before we knew they existed; therefore their existence was independent of our awareness. However, were they us? Maybe we WERE those prehistoric animals, in our 2D experience. Thus, we were still intimately connected to their existence.

Or, maybe they only manifested in this timeline once there was a reason for them to exist. Has anyone had the experience of creating something then finding evidence that it was there all along? I have.

This is a difficult concept to describe. Has anyone read The Education of Oversoul Seven Trilogy? Book 3 (or was it Book 2? not sure) provides the best illustration of seemingly paradoxical time-bending I've ever read. I highly recommend it!

I don't deny that they are concepts within infinity.. In a way you're denying that.. You're claiming that the infinite cannot create thus creation is not part of the infinite. I claim it can. I claim that the process of creating as seen in our 3d experience is a distortion of the process of creating as it would be seen in 7d or 8d..

Key word here being distortion.
Infinity has no distortion.

Creation is a part of the infinite, sure, but it's a distortion. Thus, when describing creation, we're describing a distortion of the infinite, not infinity.

The statement You're claiming that the infinite cannot create thus creation is not part of the infinite seems to include an assumption. To say that infinite cannot create is not the same thing as saying creation is not part of the infinite.

Infinity cannot create because creating implies a new action. Infinity already includes all action....infinite actions. Hence, the statement infinity cannot create is true while the statement infinity contains creation is also, simultaneously, true. There is no paradox.

[Ali Quadir]

Hey Monica. I was expecting you Glad you joined us...

I again detect a whole lot of fuzzing over words. Unity seems to have the feeling that I'm trying to redefine infinity... I'm not trying to redefine infinity. I'm not going to answer every sentence that assumes this. I'm not detracting from your definition of infinity unity. In fact I agreed with it the last time. I just thought the word was misplaced on the concept and I was shown wrong.

I'm hoping to show that our perspectives of it change... Infinity has the ability to show it self in infinite ways. And the keyword is indeed distortion... What allows infinity to be experienced in infinite ways is distortion... Every perception in this universe of any entity ever up to the original thought is a distortion of the infinite. Which itself lies beyond comprehension because it will never be able to represent itself to anything else... There being nothing else outside of it that it can show itself to... So the infinite is indeed beyond perception. Even a total perspective requires there to be an object and a subject. But every perception even the slightest is a perception of part of the infinite.

So when the infinite is in this state. It is without concepts without definition without anything. It's the hardest and at the same time the easiest to understand concepts. You don't need to do anything to understand it, there are no intricacies, it isn't even big or small or complicated it's a non event. A quantum event with a probability of zero. It does not exist as there is nothing it can exist in relation to. So this is pre-existence. Yet it still is infinite and everything unity tells us it is. The original thought is required for it to experience self and kick start existence.

But this is why buddhists approach the infinite in emptyness.

Monica, you sugest that infinity cannot create because creating implies a new action... You call this is the distortion of creation into our domain... I agree. And even here in our every day consciousness if we look closely it does not exist... Say I create a painting... What part of it is new? The frame? The cloth? The paint? Nothing in there is new. We often say the composition is new. But the composition has always been part of the collection of possible compositions that could have been painted on the painting.... So this is not creation. It is the becoming manifest of the unmanifest.

We have however defined this precise thing as creating... We call this creating... So creation simply means organizing elements in such a way that we CALL it creating... Something emerges that was unmanifest before but still it has always been part of the infinite. And this happens everywhere in infinity. The infinite contains creation yes, but every second that something occurs that we call creation... Infinity creates... It is valid in the same way we say that humanity has created some masterpieces in art. And again it's just semantics..

Sematics kind of shows that it really is a distortion. Nothing changes in the infinite, only our perception of it.

And that's what I have been trying to say, all the opinions in this thread are distorted perceptions of something that cannot be perceived as there is nothing to which it can exist in relation to (And even this is a distortion).

So let me restate my position simply. I am maybe more liberal about the distortions in which we can describe it.. I believe they're all equally valid or invalid. Monkey mind is simply one way of perceiving infinity. Consciousness is direct perception, monkey mind is only a subset of this, direct perception of a mind we evolved to make sense of and at the same time define locality... Consciousness follows different rules it does not need to create an internal representation... When all distortion is gone only direct awareness of the infinite remains. This is what I believe Peregrinus and Experience you have been saying.

And I fully agree with them. And I know people have been looking for this experience throughout the ages. And I think people can experience it.

It is a perspective or non perspective that collapses all of infinity into nothingness, at the edge of this event the first shapes are the primordial shapes. aka The original thought. But these are subsets of infinity, they exist in the infinite. But are in themselves not infinite. All the subsets together still form the whole, or the infinite. Nothing vanishes from infinity.

I don't think we're disagreeing as much as we think we are. We're just each speaking from our own perspectives focusing on different things we consider important.

[unity100]

I'm with Ali on this one. It is purely speculative that the bird might still exist. We don't know that. We are all relative to one another.

Maybe the bird does still exist. We don't know and have no way of knowing.

bird exists ; you are observing and experiencing it. even if you were wired to a simulator, and there wasnt an actual bird, but a conceptual bird that was affecting you or your perception, there would still be existing a bird in the existence you were experiencing.

one may venture forth to resemble all existence to a simulator, then attempt to dub the existence 'illusory' at that point, and some do.

however, the thing they miss here is that, the very presence of bird in the simulator is what we define as 'existing', and as far as the invented existence concept goes, that bird exists. there is no other concept of 'existence' -> this is existence. it doesnt matter whether one calls it 'illusion' or not.

it is not an 'illusion' even from the perspective of infinity. the bird, all the experiences related to it, exist, and are part of that infinity, indispensably. without their existence in infinity, infinity wont be infinite anymore.

Key word here being distortion.
Infinity has no distortion. Wink

Creation is a part of the infinite, sure, but it's a distortion. Thus, when describing creation, we're describing a distortion of the infinite, not infinity.

The statement You're claiming that the infinite cannot create thus creation is not part of the infinite seems to include an assumption. To say that infinite cannot create is not the same thing as saying creation is not part of the infinite.

Infinity cannot create because creating implies a new action. Infinity already includes all action....infinite actions. Hence, the statement infinity cannot create is true while the statement infinity contains creation is also, simultaneously, true. There is no paradox.

that.

Infinity has the ability to show it self in infinite ways.

the example/analysis starts handicapped and wrong from the start; infinity does not 'show' itself. infinity includes the concept of showing, 'self', the beholder (the focus that whatever is being shown to) and the one showing. not only that, but infinite numbers of the act you describe have already happened, is happening and going to happen, inside infinity. there is no way to 'show itself'. it contains all the states of showing and being shown and beholding as infinity.

only parts of it, limited parts, can get limited to its parts - > can be the shower and the showed, beholder, and also the act of showing, and concept of perceiving.

infinity cannot be any of these, because, if it gets limited, its infinity no more.

.......


my opinion is, your thoughts and procedures are still way too fixated in the existing societal perceptions and experiences and the ways of societal mind.

i suggest the below :

step 1 : think of something, a concept, a state, an action, anything. the wildest version of it you can imagine. that exists within infinity.
step 2 : repeat step 1

[Monica]

Hey Monica. I was expecting you Glad you joined us...

Thanks!

I don't think we're disagreeing as much as we think we are. We're just each speaking from our own perspectives focusing on different things we consider important.

Agreed! Wow, what a wonderful post, Ali! Thanks for the clarification! Beautifully said!

---

I'm with Ali on this one. It is purely speculative that the bird might still exist. We don't know that. We are all relative to one another.

Maybe the bird does still exist. We don't know and have no way of knowing.

bird exists ; you are observing and experiencing it. even if you were wired to a simulator, and there wasnt an actual bird, but a conceptual bird that was affecting you or your perception, there would still be existing a bird in the existence you were experiencing.

one may venture forth to resemble all existence to a simulator, then attempt to dub the existence 'illusory' at that point, and some do.

however, the thing they miss here is that, the very presence of bird in the simulator is what we define as 'existing', and as far as the invented existence concept goes, that bird exists. there is no other concept of 'existence' -> this is existence. it doesnt matter whether one calls it 'illusion' or not.

it is not an 'illusion' even from the perspective of infinity. the bird, all the experiences related to it, exist, and are part of that infinity, indispensably. without their existence in infinity, infinity wont be infinite anymore.

Oh wow, thanks for the clarification! I had it backwards in what I thought you were saying. I thought you were saying the actual bird exists whether we perceive it or not.

I particularly like this part:

the very presence of bird in the simulator is what we define as 'existing', and as far as the invented existence concept goes, that bird exists. there is no other concept of 'existence' -> this is existence.

[Ali Quadir]

my opinion is, your thoughts and procedures are still way too fixated in the existing societal perceptions and experiences and the ways of societal mind.

:-/
With all due respect Unity, a judgment based on the failure to understand my position is neither a sign of intelligence or compassion.

A line of wonderful people has just passed you by, lovingly reaffirming the value of direct experience. You've rejected them all from your logic. In my humble opinion you're stuck in monkey mind. I don't think you actually see that there can be something else. And what monkey mind doesn't know, in this case the direct experience of the infinite, monkey mind rejects... It's clearly a perspective you have not held yet.

That doesn't mean it's invalid my brother. We've been trying to show you the validity of those other insights. I haven't attacked your perspective. Yet again you simply choose to disqualify what you cannot understand and what dimly seems to disagree with your position.

If you do not understand the role of perspective with regards to infinity.. Then you do not understand infinity, the two concepts are two sides of a coin. One cannot be understood without the other.

In spite of what you might think I'm not your enemy, I don't even think you have a clear sight of me, you're fighting yourself. Of course to see this you'd need a relevant understanding of perspective.

Apparently and most regrettably, I'm your catalyst for today...
Namaste.

[unity100]

i think i have participated enough in this sub branch.

[Ali Quadir]

Regrettably, only by putting different insights together can we step beyond our own. I'm not disqualifying your position I'm just adding my perspective. Everyone here sees a version of truth through their unique distortions. The ancient parable of the blindfolded philosophers come to mind, upon inspection of an elephant. One philosopher holding it's tail calls it a small worm like creature, another holding the trunk disagrees and claims it much more resembles a python. A third philosopher near the front leg calls it a tree, and the one on it's back calls it a huge boulder.

[Monica]

Regrettably, only by putting different insights together can we step beyond our own. I'm not disqualifying your position I'm just adding my perspective. Everyone here sees a version of truth through their unique distortions. The ancient parable of the blindfolded philosophers come to mind, upon inspection of an elephant. One philosopher holding it's tail calls it a small worm like creature, another holding the trunk disagrees and claims it much more resembles a python. A third philosopher near the front leg calls it a tree, and the one on it's back calls it a huge boulder.

I love the story of the blind men and the elephant! I use it often to describe the different religions, all being humans' quest for the divine.

I agree that it applies here, and is a good reason for us to be open to other points of views, without dismissing them as wrong. They aren't wrong, but just different points of view.

What really gets interesting is when the blind man holding the tail is willing to move over and try the leg, or the head, or the ear.

[Etude in B Minor]

Infinity doesn't have to include everything. There are an infinite number (actually an uncountable number) of irrational numbers between 0 and 1, but there are yet other irrational numbers to be found elsewhere. In fact, for any infinite set there is always one that is larger.

[unity100]

that is mathematics. not infinity.

[Ali Quadir]

Yeah Etude, it's kind of a result of the Ra transmissions. Ra uses the word infinity in not quite the mathematical meaning. So we kind of use the word infinity here as how Ra used it, it doesn't convert well to the mathematical word.. But you are correct for math and physics.. I usually translate the word infinity to totality inside my head whenever it is used here.

[Brittany]

I constantly say you can't comprehend how beautiful the light is without it's shadow. Both dark and light are 100% necessary in order for the universe to function. That doesn't mean we have to approve of dark deeds, or that they have no consequences, but who is truly in a place to judge? If someone truly feels that STS is the path they want to walk, I'd say go for it. Reminds me of one of my favorite quotes, said by Shepherd Book in the movie Serenity: "I don't care WHAT you believe, just believe it!"

[Monica]

:exclamation::exclamation::exclamation::exclamation::exclamation::exclamation::exclamation:

Please see also this thread's sister thread:

Strictly Law of One > There isnt that much freedom it seems...and INFINITY

Both threads have intricate discussions weaving in the topic of infinity along with their original topic, so I don't think I'll be merging them. But the discussions of infinity overlap and excellent points are made on both threads.

[Questioner]

We could just add Buzz Lightyear saying "to infinity... and beyond!" Make it a standard part of the title of every thread around here. :-)

[Monica]

We could just add Buzz Lightyear saying "to infinity... and beyond!" Make it a standard part of the title of every thread around here. :-)

Haha, oh no, that would really open up a debate!

[βαθμιαίος]

Yeah Etude, it's kind of a result of the Ra transmissions. Ra uses the word infinity in not quite the mathematical meaning. So we kind of use the word infinity here as how Ra used it, it doesn't convert well to the mathematical word.. But you are correct for math and physics.. I usually translate the word infinity to totality inside my head whenever it is used here.

I remember seeing a discussion about that but I didn't follow it. Could you or anyone else summarize or point me to it?

[Etude in B Minor]

Yeah Etude, it's kind of a result of the Ra transmissions. Ra uses the word infinity in not quite the mathematical meaning. So we kind of use the word infinity here as how Ra used it, it doesn't convert well to the mathematical word.. But you are correct for math and physics.. I usually translate the word infinity to totality inside my head whenever it is used here.

I am familiar with the Ra usage, and I still wish to make the same point that infinity doesn't necessarily imply everything. Or to use your word totality doesn't necessarily mean everything.

In my view infinity/totality is infinite "potential". Anything and everything is potential. But the experience of "infinity" (in the Ra sense) is a subset of the potential (but still infinite - mathematically :-).

The creator is everything that is (it could be no other way) and is infinite, and has everything possible in potentiation. My main point I want to make is that the Creator, in its expression, "chooses" the particular out of the potential. This expression is still infinite but is not everything possible. In my opinion this infinite expression is intelligent infinity. Why "intelligent"? Because it is what chooses the expression. I refuse to believe in the many-worlds view of endless parallel universes, each differing by a insignificant little detail. It is not necessary to have such a dreary expression. Instead, the creator through intelligent infinity and through the distortion of free-will experiences a wildly different expression of itself. The free-will of intelligent infinity is the key. Until a free-will choice is made the path that actual expression takes cannot be known. That is why Ra always talks about probability vortices and the like. While the potential expressions (universes) may have vanishingly small differences, the one that is actually expressed depends on the free-will, which cannot be known until the choice is made. Everything in the creation takes part in its creation through active choosing with free-will. Most of the creation, through free-will chooses to follow a pattern (and hence seem to not have free will) but some parts, such as those in our 3D world, appear to make choices independent of any pattern and hence are seen to have free-will.

Thus, it is the expression of the potential that I was referring to when I said that infinity does not have to include everything. Ali's "totality" could refer to the expression of the creator, which would be of a lesser order of infinity (but still infinite) than the infinity of the potential. Or it could refer to the infinity of the potential, which to my mind is somewhat meaningless. It is in the expression that the creator knows itself.

OK, I will stop here before I approach infinite post length!

Peace out...

[Experience You]

I don't see the need to separate things into potential and experience, not saying this is not a phenomena you can perceive so but infinity simply is everything and nothing , all possibilities and all experiences.

Just because you think many-worlds view of endless parallel universes is inelegant and not necessary, it does not make it more or less real. It just is a theory real into it's on perception.

When Ra talked about probability vortexes they meant from our POV(at that time) vibration what was more likely or not to happen, it does not mean the other vibrations(realities) aren't real and happening as well.

Which also makes me point that reality is fluid and that you/we/ALL are the sole perpetrator on how much flexible and aware you/we/all allow it to be.

You could simplify this into: There is only consciousness that conceives ALL and experiences ALL and nothing.

Everything else is just details (subsets) of that.

What exactly consciousness is and if it has substance or not, i don't know.

So discussing about things like this, allows us to see how consciousness can experience things differently trough different points of view.

Which makes Truth undetermined, Truth is what you perceive it to be. So everything is truth and nothing is. You change the parameters you change the meaning and relevance of any truth.

Which brings us back to consciousness and ALL.

That's how i see it

It is the beauty of ALL

[unity100]

Thus, it is the expression of the potential that I was referring to when I said that infinity does not have to include everything. Ali's "totality" could refer to the expression of the creator, which would be of a lesser order of infinity (but still infinite) than the infinity of the potential. Or it could refer to the infinity of the potential, which to my mind is somewhat meaningless. It is in the expression that the creator knows itself.

OK, I will stop here before I approach infinite post length!

Peace out...

infinity necessarily has to imply everything, and things that are 'not', and then infinity.

else, it cant be infinite.

'infinity in potential', or any lesser order of infinity, would not be infinite, since they would be missing a particular aspect (their counterpart) in the infinite.

it feels like you are taking infinity, in the sense of space.

[Tenet Nosce]

My view is that STS represents the energetic and philosophic emphasis on the self as creator, and STO represents the energetic and philosophic emphasis on the creator as self, if that makes sense.

I believe this statement to be, not only true, but extremely precise.

This is why STS gloms onto the "You Create Your Own Reality" scheme as a primary way to convert STO to STS. Since "I am the Creator" whatever I say goes, even if it flies in the face of the greater reality of which I am just a small part. This is because the whole of the universe lives inside me, and I AM ALL THERE IS.

STO recognizes that "YCYOR" is limited to personal reality, not universal reality. This is because STO discerns that, even though technically speaking it is, in fact, ALL THERE IS, the primary expression of that grand cosmic truth in this reality, is expressed as group consensus.

Thus, we have free reign to choose whatever sort of experience of ourselves we would like to have. However, we can't by an act of personal will change an apple into a banana. That type of ability is not expressed at this level of being. That it is supposedly the "DIVINE BIRTHRIGHT" of the seeker to express otherwise miraculous powers within 3D is exactly the focus of the STS path.

[yossarian]

AwakenedOne, thanks for sharing. All that stuff about accessing the gateway sort of went over my head, so I'll decline from commenting further.

I am curious, though, as to where you came from. (You said you came here on a mission.)

Your very welcome my beloved. I prayed for a short reply from you It is well that the stuff about “through” the gateway went over your head Perhaps you outfoxed your intellect. As I said, you won’t need your head for that part.

“Accessing”, or gaining the ability to access it, is actually another topic, and an important one where you will want and need your head though, as it relates to ways you will want to use your intellect as one tool to Self Mastery (5th Chakra and below) to assist in transmutation of all negativity, judgments, fears, thought forms and “issues” within your lower self which are what prevent/block you from access. I’ll likely start a thread on the topic…it relates directly to my plan/mission for this incarnation.

As to your curiosity…didn’t that kill a bunch of cats? Where I came from? If you mean just prior to coming to Earth, I haven’t a clue...I have been here so long I have forgotten and not yet recalled. If you mean originally, as far as I am aware I didn’t come from any particular “world” if that’s what you mean. Perhaps a bit of an oddity, I was conceived in space outside of a specific world though. I am truly a Wanderer with no “home world”. I have two lovely homes: a mobile home wherever I’m at as I wander, and my eternal home at Source. My Cosmic Father is a space commander and my Cosmic Mother is the overseer of a world/planet. I am aware of more specifics about them both. But, I resist the temptation to tell further in order to serve my humility, in recognition that further explanation would only serve my self-importance and yield no valuable service to you or others.

Much love and blessings to you…I’ll be off the grid for a time out playing in Papa’s creation and serving it, but I’ll return. Thank you again Monica for the wonderful opportunity and service you provided me!! I wish I had time and words to explain how incredibly powerfully you’ve served me. Know that I am eternally grateful to you. I owe you ONE LOL – Awakened Oneness

---

PS - As some linear time progresses (maybe a few months) you may get value from re-reading my final post/response...you may discover things in there then due to your awareness being in a different place.

Seems like being mysterious about it all serves self-importance more than anything. If you remove your own mysteriousness, others will have less of a tendency to worship you.

I understand not wanting to put stuff into words so as not to devalue the ineffable, but withholding for the sake of humility? The way humans work is that we don't worship those who disclose, we worship those who remain mysterious. If someone says, "I am from Omega Perceon 8 and have purple eyes in the other world" we call him schizophrenic. But if they say, "I am not of the world and the world I am from cannot be described" our mouths hang agape and we bow down in awe.

What's my point? My point is that coyness is far more self-aggrandizing than disclosure. Disclosure makes you look delusional, coyness makes you look Godlike.

---

I constantly say you can't comprehend how beautiful the light is without it's shadow. Both dark and light are 100% necessary in order for the universe to function. That doesn't mean we have to approve of dark deeds, or that they have no consequences, but who is truly in a place to judge? If someone truly feels that STS is the path they want to walk, I'd say go for it. Reminds me of one of my favorite quotes, said by Shepherd Book in the movie Serenity: "I don't care WHAT you believe, just believe it!"

Everyone is so racist toward non-believers! What is so bad about being unpolarized, unbelieving, in the sinkhole of indifference?

Why we gotta judge those who choose unpolarized unbelievingness?