Free Will Infringement, what is it?

[flofrog]

Finally caught up. Great thread.

Infringement on Free Will is a term which first means the terms need defined. There has been attempts to define infringement, but not free will.

(...)

The ability of each individual and each society to determine their own path in all aspects, not just spiritually, is ultimately what free will is about. The STS path is quite literally about infringing on the free will of others. The more a STS individual can do so the more they polarize. If Free Will infringement was not possible in 3D then STS polarization would not be possible either. The STO path is IMO best summed up from a quote from Neal Donald Walsh, "Love Allows".

Quite so, Dtris

[Minyatur]

If Free Will is the First Distortion and the first movement away from "true unity", is that a suggestion that Infinity in potential is 'not free'?

To me it really is the first paradox. Could the Creator not come to know Itself? I'd think not.

27.8 Questioner: Now, I understand that the first distortion of intelligent infinity is the distortion of what we call free will. Can you give me a definition of this distortion?

Ra: I am Ra. In this distortion of the Law of One it is recognized that the Creator will know Itself.

[Aion]

If Free Will is the First Distortion and the first movement away from "true unity", is that a suggestion that Infinity in potential is 'not free'?

To me it really is the first paradox. Could the Creator not come to know Itself? I'd think not.

27.8 Questioner: Now, I understand that the first distortion of intelligent infinity is the distortion of what we call free will. Can you give me a definition of this distortion?

Ra: I am Ra. In this distortion of the Law of One it is recognized that the Creator will know Itself.

Known and Unknown, two things which can only exist in paradox in infinity. With what does the Creator know? If the Creator is before mind, what is the self-knowledge of the Creator experienced through? Perhaps it cannot, without the extension of will as mind.

[Patrick]

...
If Free Will is the First Distortion and the first movement away from "true unity", is that a suggestion that Infinity in potential is 'not free'?
...

In Unity, everything is stuck together and not free.  But it does not know about free so it's not missing anything.

What is interesting is that it became aware before becoming aware of being able to be many.

What was it like for Infinity to be aware, I AM, without freewill?

But as Ra said, all the "steps" are actually simultaneous.  So there was no moment to be aware without being aware of freewill?

1) The first known thing in creation is infinity. The infinity is creation.

2) Infinity became aware (intelligent infinity).

3) Intelligent Infinity became aware of the concept of free will.

4) It realized It was even free to consider the idea of many-ness, that is, more than one. Free will immediately gives rise to many-ness.

5) Intelligent Infinity decided to explore this idea.  In so doing Intelligent Infinity became the Creator.

6) The 1st distortion, free will, finds focus. This is the 2nd distortion the Creative Principle or Love. (Love may be seen as the type of energy of an extremely high order which causes intelligent energy to be formed from the potential of intelligent infinity in a particular way. All Love emanates from the Oneness.)

7) Love uses Its intelligent energy to create a certain pattern of illusions or densities in order to satisfy Its own intelligent estimate of a method of knowing itself.

8) This intelligent energy thus creates a distortion known as Light. From these 3 distortions come many, many hierarchies of distortions each having its own paradoxes to be synthesized, no one being any more important than another.

9) Due to the infinite possibilities of intelligent infinity, there is no ending to many-ness. The exploration thus is free to continue infinitely into an eternal present.

Here is a nice explanation of it all from our current perspective in 3d.

I believe that the result is there; we experience it as the "future attractor". This reality is like an equation or prequel, designed to create a deeper understanding of that result.

[Aion]

[Minyatur]

What follows the quote I posted earlier, in regard to that free will entails that the Creator will know Itself, might be of interest.

27.9 Questioner: Then am I correct then in assuming that the Creator will know Itself the Creator, then grants for this knowing the concept of freedom— total freedom of choice in the ways of knowing? Am I correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is quite correct.

From it, you can somewhat understand why they call free will infringement for higher densities to do certain things in relation to violating the Law of Confusion, it infringes upon the freedom of choice in the ways of knowing the self.

It is interesting to note how Ra puts emphasis upon the correctness of Don in that quote. So this is clearly better than the usual "This is correct", but still behind "This is absolutely correct" on some level.

I kind of saw the "absolutely correct" quote randomly when searching for the keyword correct, although it somehow connect to a session I was also quoting in another thread earlier. It relates to this thread in that the "absolutely correct" came in response to Don recognizing that a wanderer having been infringed upon by a negative adept and placed in negative time/space was a function of his free will in some way.

[MrWho]

https://www.lawofone.info/s/90#29

We wished to impress upon those who wished to learn of unity that in unity all paradoxes are resolved; all that is broken is healed; all that is forgotten is brought to light.

[Aion]

...
If Free Will is the First Distortion and the first movement away from "true unity", is that a suggestion that Infinity in potential is 'not free'?
...

In Unity, everything is stuck together and not free.  But it does not know about free so it's not missing anything.

What is interesting is that it became aware before becoming aware of being able to be many.

What was it like for Infinity to be aware, I AM, without freewill?

But as Ra said, all the "steps" are actually simultaneous.  So there was no moment to be aware without being aware of freewill?

1) The first known thing in creation is infinity. The infinity is creation.

2) Infinity became aware (intelligent infinity).

3) Intelligent Infinity became aware of the concept of free will.

4) It realized It was even free to consider the idea of many-ness, that is, more than one. Free will immediately gives rise to many-ness.

5) Intelligent Infinity decided to explore this idea.  In so doing Intelligent Infinity became the Creator.

6) The 1st distortion, free will, finds focus. This is the 2nd distortion the Creative Principle or Love. (Love may be seen as the type of energy of an extremely high order which causes intelligent energy to be formed from the potential of intelligent infinity in a particular way. All Love emanates from the Oneness.)

7) Love uses Its intelligent energy to create a certain pattern of illusions or densities in order to satisfy Its own intelligent estimate of a method of knowing itself.

8) This intelligent energy thus creates a distortion known as Light. From these 3 distortions come many, many hierarchies of distortions each having its own paradoxes to be synthesized, no one being any more important than another.

9) Due to the infinite possibilities of intelligent infinity, there is no ending to many-ness. The exploration thus is free to continue infinitely into an eternal present.

Here is a nice explanation of it all from our current perspective in 3d.

I believe that the result is there; we experience it as the "future attractor". This reality is like an equation or prequel, designed to create a deeper understanding of that result.

Great lay out, there is one part that stands out and which turns my own mind.

"Intelligent infinity decided to explore this idea", this idea of a "decision" or a choice made is a great mystery. This sense that until this happened infinity... didn't choose...? The paradox is too great for this flesh brain.

[flofrog]

Neal Walsh in Conversations with God had that image offered to him, imagine a completely white room, nothing happens, and suddenly a black dot appears in one corner and suddenly everything is different and you have to have an opinion about it.

[Patrick]

...
Great lay out, there is one part that stands out and which turns my own mind.

"Intelligent infinity decided to explore this idea", this idea of a "decision" or a choice made is a great mystery. This sense that until this happened infinity... didn't choose...? The paradox is too great for this flesh brain.

It's hard to imagine Infinity.  We can barely imagine an infinity, like numbers growing to infinity, but the Infinity is something else.

Within Infinity exists the set of all possibilities, including a possibility such as consciousness.  So the existence of consciousness is actually automatic.

I am not sure there was ever a state when it did not yet exist.  There seems to be in the way the Law of One presents it to us, but if these steps are all simultaneous, then this particular order is only given to help us poor fleshy brains get it.

What boggles my mind is that the Infinity is somehow "more" than the set of all possibilities.

[Glow]

Neal Walsh in Conversations with God had that image offered to him, imagine a completely white room, nothing happens, and suddenly a black dot appears in one corner and suddenly everything is different and you have to have an opinion about it.

Wow that is awesome!

[Diana]

In Unity, everything is stuck together and not free.  But it does not know about free so it's not missing anything.

But since "everything" (all possibilities) is in potential when in "unity" then would freedom even have any relevance in the way we look at it? The unmanifested source of this existence, the OIC, would have the freedom to explicate/manifest/distort anything from itself, that is, if it could realize that option, which it apparently did.

The idea of "unity" is difficult to grasp when paired with "infinite." Unity suggest that there are parts to be unified. Infinity suggests something like the wave function where all possibilities are inherent, and I picture some infinite, implicate, conscious yet unfocused, endless field of energy, which has no parts. What I imagine is this field, though infinite, evolves through the manifested parts of itself—us and all manifestation—as the parts evolve. Therefore when reunited with the source, the source carries the signature of what you have added to it, and in that way your part is apparent in the whole.

In the holographic model, each piece of a holographic plate (the whole plate would correspond to the OIC) holds the entire image of the whole, yet as the pieces get smaller (are cut from the original plate), the image becomes fuzzier. The pieces would correspond to the hierarchy of derivatives (logos, sub-logos, sub-sub-logos etc.), hence the formation of SMCs may have a clearer view of existence because they become a larger (unified) holographic piece, and therefore have resolved some of the fuzziness.

What boggles my mind is that the Infinity is somehow "more" than the set of all possibilities.

I think this has to do with another conundrum—how something infinite could evolve. But if it couldn't, then evolving would not be a possibility, and all possibilities must exist within infinity. Infinity cannot be finite.

[flofrog]

I think this has to do with another conundrum—how something infinite could evolve. But if it couldn't, then evolving would not be a possibility, and all possibilities must exist within infinity. Infinity cannot be finite.

but then can there be a 'within' infinity as there would be then an 'outside' .... lol they must be laughing, ever so kindly, in higher density at us valiantly trying to put into 3D words our evaluation of those glorious things..

[Patrick]

It's ok not to get it.

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.

[MrWho]

It's ok not to get it.

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.

This is the key to unblocking indigo ray for Kundalini meditations.

[Sabou]

Well ya know, considering that in 6th density, after millions and millions of years of space/time, the nature of the next octave of experience remains a mystery, let alone the mystery of infinity.

I guess we could cut ourselves some slack ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Aion]

But I wanna get it riiight nooooowww.

[zedro]

I find infinity is easier to comprehend when you consider it as a division (or magnification) of a single unified thing, rather than an expansive outward concept, and that the observation dynamically alters what is being observed.

So you start with say an apple (the creation as a whole) and then start to cut it into pieces. There is no limit to how many times you can divide it. Then you magnify it, and observe that there is a micro structure, and that can be divided. As you keep dividing and magnifying, you keep discovering what the apple actually is. This is the essence of the creation exploring itself, it's a continuous fractal pairing down and division process, except that the fractals are dynamic and can interact and change itself in an interative feedback process, further expanding the infinite observing of itself. Or something like that

[flofrog]

Something like this, zedro ?    

universe to a leaf..

[Sabou]

When you really feel into your core the idea that experience (in some form) will never end, like never ever...

Ever 


Have you ever just let that stew in your mind until you feel really strange inside? 

I don't know, it does something to you man. 

[zedro]

Something like this, zedro ?    

universe to a leaf..

Very cool....now just add layers of consciousness to all that and you get intelligent infinity.

Another cool aspect that resembles fractals is comparing the structures, like how galaxies also look like neural networks, or mycelium networks. So infinitely repeating patterns that are also distinct, created from a master blueprint/algorithm.

[Diana]

[Dtris]

I find infinity is easier to comprehend when you consider it as a division (or magnification) of a single unified thing, rather than an expansive outward concept, and that the observation dynamically alters what is being observed.

So you start with say an apple (the creation as a whole) and then start to cut it into pieces. There is no limit to how many times you can divide it. Then you magnify it, and observe that there is a micro structure, and that can be divided. As you keep dividing and magnifying, you keep discovering what the apple actually is. This is the essence of the creation exploring itself, it's a continuous fractal pairing down and division process, except that the fractals are dynamic and can interact and change itself in an interative feedback process, further expanding the infinite observing of itself. Or something like that

Now take that process and reverse it and for a true infinity it should also work in the opposite direction. In other words there is no apple.

I personally think the greatest issue to understanding is that infinity is actually not a very good word. The only two languages I know of which have better words for it is Chinese and Hebrew.

In Chinese the Wuji is the state before Taiji. Taiji is best known by the Yin Yang Diagram and is the state of polarity. Wuji is a state of undifferentiation which preceeded Taiji. The famous saying in China from the Taoist texts which is most pertinent is "One leads to two, two leads to three, three leads to the 10,000 things." One being Wuji, two being Taiji, and 10,000 things is a saying which is used to mean a lot, or an unknown number, or uncountable number.

In Hebrew the word is Ain. Which is usually translated as infinite but it doesn't really match the feel of the word. I find this one more difficult to explain. There is Ain, Ain Soph, and Ain Soph Aur. Which are usually translated as infinity, infinite limitless, and infinite limitless light. These precisely match the progression Ra explains of Infinite Intelligence, Infinite Energy, and Light.

The reason infinite is such a poor word is because it is a mathematical term for a sequence which has no beginning or end. Which since we are primarily native english speakers the concept of infinity is tied to the infinite series, or an infinite line, etc. The concepts which are behind Wuji and Ain are even more expansive for lack of a better word.

[zedro]

Now take that process and reverse it and for a true infinity it should also work in the opposite direction. In other words there is no apple.

Reversing the process reveals Unity, which is what we are climbing back to, but infinity still exists inside that unity, it's what defines it, as infinite potential.

It's a paradox, like analog defining the space between the digital nodes.

[jafar]

Now take that process and reverse it and for a true infinity it should also work in the opposite direction. In other words there is no apple.

Correct..
When you define an apple you will also define not apple.
You layout a border between apple and non-apple.

When you define France you will also define not France.
When you look down upon the earth, there is actually no border between France and Not France.
The border is imaginary / illusion within your own understanding.

When you define beginning you will also define the end.
When you define Free Will you will also define Not Free Will.

Yet all the border are imaginary, only a definition.
To reach an infinite, all border need to be eliminated.
Thus all defined need to be undefined.

Ascension is not achieved through gaining but through losing/letting.
Not through knowing but through unknowing.
Not through defining but through undefining.

That's why from absolute perspective, Free Will do not exist, as does anything else which has border / limit.

[Ohr Ein Sof]

I find infinity is easier to comprehend when you consider it as a division (or magnification) of a single unified thing, rather than an expansive outward concept, and that the observation dynamically alters what is being observed.

So you start with say an apple (the creation as a whole) and then start to cut it into pieces. There is no limit to how many times you can divide it. Then you magnify it, and observe that there is a micro structure, and that can be divided. As you keep dividing and magnifying, you keep discovering what the apple actually is. This is the essence of the creation exploring itself, it's a continuous fractal pairing down and division process, except that the fractals are dynamic and can interact and change itself in an interative feedback process, further expanding the infinite observing of itself. Or something like that

Now take that process and reverse it and for a true infinity it should also work in the opposite direction. In other words there is no apple.

I personally think the greatest issue to understanding is that infinity is actually not a very good word. The only two languages I know of which have better words for it is Chinese and Hebrew.

In Chinese the Wuji is the state before Taiji. Taiji is best known by the Yin Yang Diagram and is the state of polarity. Wuji is a state of undifferentiation which preceeded Taiji. The famous saying in China from the Taoist texts which is most pertinent is "One leads to two, two leads to three, three leads to the 10,000 things." One being Wuji, two being Taiji, and 10,000 things is a saying which is used to mean a lot, or an unknown number, or uncountable number.

In Hebrew the word is Ain. Which is usually translated as infinite but it doesn't really match the feel of the word. I find this one more difficult to explain. There is Ain, Ain Soph, and Ain Soph Aur. Which are usually translated as infinity, infinite limitless, and infinite limitless light. These precisely match the progression Ra explains of Infinite Intelligence, Infinite Energy, and Light.

The reason infinite is such a poor word is because it is a mathematical term for a sequence which has no beginning or end. Which since we are primarily native english speakers the concept of infinity is tied to the infinite series, or an infinite line, etc. The concepts which are behind Wuji and Ain are even more expansive for lack of a better word.

The reason infinite is such a poor word is because it is a mathematical term for a sequence which has no beginning or end.

In the bolded...herein lies the human problem with such things. Something that cannot be conceptualized is being put into concept. Lol.
Excellent discussion

[MrWho]

Then use the word "unity" instead. They are one in the same.

[Dtris]

Then use the word "unity" instead. They are one in the same.

I have to disagree. In the English language infinity and unity are not the same.

"There is an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1."
"There is an unity(united) amount of numbers between 0 and 1."

"The possibilities are infinite."
"The possibilities are unity(united)."

"Space is infinite."
"Space is unity(united)."

"All that exists is connected in unity."
"All that exists is connected in infinity."

These are not the same concepts in our language. One of the issues is that niche communities tend to use words with common definitions in uncommon ways. So those of us who are familiar with Ra may be able to begin to understand infinity and unity as connected concepts, that is because we have an other than common understanding of those words. In reality we have added qualia to the words which wasn't there before, for lack of other words to use. I think people would most often be better served making new words up than trying to use existing ones when they don't fit.

[Patrick]

In mathematics there are many infinities.  An infinity is not the same as the Infinity.

[Dtris]

In mathematics there are many infinities.  An infinity is not the same as the Infinity.

Well mathematically there is no "the" infinity. Infinite is a descriptor, not a thing in itself.