Balance of this Forum (poll)

[AnthroHeart]

How are these forums balanced with the discussions going on?

[Glow]

Interesting question. I’m interested in the results too as I really had to think about that.

[ada]

I'd say a mixture of both with a leaning towards Wisdom. It's quite challeging to send unconditional love through text without or with little distortion. It's often rather confusing unfortunately.

[Agua]

removed

[rva_jeremy]

I think the term "wisdom" is often used very casually.

I agree, but I don't think this is an oversight. L/L Research folks tend to talk about wisdom and love as two major modes of thinking, not necessarily love as pure love or wisdom as pure wisdom. For example, somebody expressing despair is on the love side, but it's highly distorted. Similarly, somebody emphasizing a technical approach to matters, even if the approach is foolish, is on the wisdom side, even though they're not being "wise". I see it more as a left brain / right brain thing.

Anybody else interpret it this way? 

[Diana]

I think the term "wisdom" is often used very casually.

I agree, but I don't think this is an oversight. L/L Research folks tend to talk about wisdom and love as two major modes of thinking, not necessarily love as pure love or wisdom as pure wisdom. For example, somebody expressing despair is on the love side, but it's highly distorted. Similarly, somebody emphasizing a technical approach to matters, even if the approach is foolish, is on the wisdom side, even though they're not being "wise". I see it more as a left brain / right brain thing.

Anybody else interpret it this way? 

I feel this is too linear. Certainly here in 3D there is a different approach to living via left-brain vs. right-brain pathways, which is reinforced by our school systems and jobs (mostly left brain).

However, I feel it's more like a soup when one gets out of the human drama. The soup being whatever portions of the all one resonates with and can apprehend at any given moment. The key here is to not be enmeshed with the human drama. 

In the LOO, and descriptions of densities, it has come through as being very linear, and maybe in general this is how it plays out. But I think evolution is always in flux, changing, expanding, retracting, three steps froward two back, quantum leaps, layers, ad infinitum. I agree with Agua that "wisdom" and "head" are very different. I don't think wisdom is even something that can even be described in words.

[Agua]

removed

[Agua]

removed

[ada]

16.39 ▶ Questioner: I am assuming it is not necessary for an individual to understand the Law of One to go from third to fourth density. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. It is absolutely necessary that an entity consciously realize it does not understand in order for it to be harvestable. Understanding is not of this density.

I always keep coming to this paragraph when thinking about wisdom in third density.

What kind of wisdom there is in a density with no understanding? Oneness and stillness? Love and compassion? These are the concepts that come in mind.

[rva_jeremy]

I feel this is too linear. Certainly here in 3D there is a different approach to living via left-brain vs. right-brain pathways, which is reinforced by our school systems and jobs (mostly left brain).

I totally get that in many ways the left/right brain thing is unhelpful. I didn't mean it quite that literally; just that when we compare love to wisdom, that we're talking about two basic approaches and not simply "being wise" or "being loving" as unalloyed good and effective things.

I think you're coming from a wisdom perspective, for example, when you get into conspiracy stuff, but I personally don't think that's wise. But it's the kind of thing that lends itself to the wisdom way of thinking.

[rva_jeremy]

In the LOO, and descriptions of densities, it has come through as being very linear, and maybe in general this is how it plays out. But I think evolution is always in flux, changing, expanding, retracting, three steps froward two back, quantum leaps, layers, ad infinitum. I agree with Agua that "wisdom" and "head" are very different. I don't think wisdom is even something that can even be described in words.

You're almost certainly correct. I think what we get in studying Confederation philosophy is the stuff we can use, not the stuff that is the best model of the actual situation. I think things are probably far more complex, nuanced, and mind-boggling than we suspect. There does seem to be some utility to a kind of stylized conceptual framework, though.

It's like we need just enough constraint in order to use the illusion. Too much and we become rigid, doctrinaire, looking right at the mystery and seeing a solved equation. Too little and the mystery is so inchoate that we cannot react to it, we cannot reason about it in order to make our mistakes in the first place.