What convinced you?

[MistaG]

The more I read the Law of One the more I find myself questioning whether or not I'm remaining objective in my thinking. To address this I usually go back and review this idea, as it blipped in to my head a few months ago, to remind myself just how well it maps with the notions discussed in the LOO.

In my darker moments I've told myself, "This could all be coincidence, after all, these concepts are the purview of almost all philosophical doctrines." But then as I dig deeper I call to mind that not only are the philosophical elements the same even the numerical values correlate.

For instance in the below diagram, before I knew anything about the Law of One, I had come to the conclusion that we were in Q3 on the cusp of Q4. Upon publishing the idea online an anonymous person pointed me in the direction of David Wilcock's which inadvertently lead me to the Law of One.

Let me tell you when Ra first mentions that humans are segueing from 3rd density to 4th I did one hell of a double take!



As I read further I couldn't help but boggle at the similarity between the two ideas. The notion of intelligent infinity fits with the concept of value, to be produced & reproduced, going to infinity as described in book 1, pg. 102,

... Their purposes are very simple: to allow those entities of your planet to become aware of infinity which is often best expressed to the uninformed as the mysterious or unknown.

It also jives with the Law of One notion that humans are "Brothers and Sisters of Sorrow" which neatly translates to (Q3 - Competition) as seen below in Fig. 2 representing "peak nature", "beginning group" (which can be seen as self-awareness and awareness of others), and "end self."

What happens at the transition from Q3 (3rd density) to Q4 (4th density) is "End Self", "Peak Group" (clearly an indicator of love and/or since this occurs during 'Plenty' suggesting 'understanding' like during the renaissance), "Beginning Choice". This, too, is exactly as described by Ra in book 1, pg 160,

... fourth, the cycle of love or understanding; ...

Even the idea of negative and positive realms fits in to this idea when viewing the z-axis as consequence (see Fig. 1 above).



I also found the notions of colors as related to chakras meshed with my synesthetic feeling towards numbers. For example, not long after the idea blipped-in I had the distinct impression that 5 was blue / white, 3 orange / yellow, and the others number-color pairs also happened to map to the other "rays." I even kept saying, "5 is wisdom." (as Ra notes in book 1, pg 160)

Having never been spiritual in the slightest this was just WEIRD. Seeing these things this way, especially having had no experience with eastern ideas & beliefs, was just too strange for me.

I might add while this was occurring I was deeply at odds with myself because it was both a combination of rational thought and an in-pouring of imagery that just wouldn't stop. I kept having these ideas that God was 0 (I even put together a rational argument for this), pi being that which perpetuates all things, and many other hard to explain concepts that kept coming at me while both awake and in a sleep state.

Then on top of this even the notion of the 8 densities fit:



If you pay careful attention to the above diagram it even shows the planet is in the 4th! As Ra noted in book 1, pg. 100,

This sphere is at this time in fourth-dimension vibration. Its material is quite confused due to the society memory complexes embedded in its consciousness

and on page 141,

I am Ra. The sphere upon which you dwell is third density in its beingness of mind/body/spirit complexes. It is now in a space/time continuum, fourth density. This is causing a somewhat difficult harvest.

Another thing that took me aback is that early on I had played around with the idea (working from Fig. 1) of how progression would occur from omnipotence, to omnipresence, omniscience, and possibly even reaching into omni-benevolence. After using a combination of both the interstitial mental imagery mixed with my rational brain I came to the conclusion (seen below) showing how a sentience would develop over an unimaginably long time-line.



Again all of this occurred to me before ever finding the Law of One.

Shockingly Ra states in book 1, pg 161,

There is past, present, and future in third density. In an overview such as an entity may have, removed from the space/time continuum, it may be seen that in the cycle of completion there exists only the present. We, ourselves, seek to learn this understanding. At the seventh level or dimension, we shall, if our humble efforts are sufficient, become one with all, thus having no memory, no identity, no past or future, but existing in the all.

This is clearly describing omnipresence. This is inside the bounds as I had plotted it out in the above diagram (Fig. 4) when converting from the system of 4's (as used in Fig. 1) to 8's (seen in Fig. 5 since Ra seems to prefer 8 subdivisions to describe a full period or "octave").

Likewise Ra states in Book 1, pg. 138,

Awareness led to the focus of infinity into infinite energy. You have called this by various vibrational sound complexes, the most common to your ears being “Logos” or “Love.” The Creator is the focusing of infinity as an aware or conscious principle called by us as closely as we can create understanding/learning in your language, intelligent infinity.

This maps with the last portion of the sequence being "omni-benevolence" or "love."

Two for two!

I could keep going, but I'd like to pretend that I'm still sane even though I'm sure I'm so far beyond the pale at this point that there's no hope for me. If I were to talk about the physical waking synchronicities that were happening around this time (as I partially touched on here) I'd seal my fate and end up in the loony bin.

Anyways I started this thread both to better organize my own thoughts, but also to get a sense of what convinced others here that the Law of One is accurate. Perhaps hearing other peoples stories will help me better come to grips with this strange new world I find myself navigating.

I look forward to hearing everyone's comments!

Best,
-Dustin

[βαθμιαίος]

I think for me it was the shock of recognition, the sense that it just made sense. The arguments I use to still my doubting mind are the internal consistency of the material and the fact that I can't conceive of how it could have been produced other than how it is claimed to have been produced.

[Lavazza]

Honestly, I have no idea what convinced me, or even continues to convince me. I know many people who would shrug the Law of One philosophy completely, but for some reason I feel very close to it. I've always been an idealist I suppose, and the notion of all things, people and beliefs as valid in their own right is both appealing and elegant to me. I still haven't written up my 'wanderer' story, maybe it's about time I do so (although I am uncertain as to my status as a wanderer).

The information you posted above looks very interesting, although I haven't had time to read it. Will do so soon.

thanks!

[MistaG]

... the fact that I can't conceive of how it could have been produced other than how it is claimed to have been produced.

One thing that occurred to me is if the authors had come to the idea in advance (which I'm not claiming they did!!) they very likely would have simply written a book on philosophy rather than claiming it was the channeling from an ethereal entity named Ra.

Why? Because publishing a westernized philosophical text would likely appeal to a larger audience and therefore result in a bigger return. However that's not what we see.

So you're right that does lend a degree of credibility.

[MistaG]

Honestly, I have no idea what convinced me, or even continues to convince me. I know many people who would shrug the Law of One philosophy completely, but for some reason I feel very close to it.

Interesting. I've always been deeply skeptical of any work that claims communication with aliens or other paranormal events as being anything more than fantasy or misinterpretation.

Granted there are a handful of UFO cases that are extremely compelling (the 1957 RB-47 case, '56 Lakenheath-Bentwaters, '86 flight JAL-1628, the 80's Hudson valley UFO flap, etc), but without radar data or a large sampling of people all corroborating the event it's hard to say whether the person simply misidentified what they were seeing or if it is as they claim.

Then add the statistic that 9 out of 10 sightings are misidentifications and it's easy to see why I'm highly dubious of people claiming communication with other lifeforms. This kind of thinking makes it very difficult for me to accept the Law of One regardless of how well it meshes with my own weird experience.

I've always been an idealist I suppose, and the notion of all things, people and beliefs as valid in their own right is both appealing and elegant to me.

I'm fairly similar. I've often wondered why people become so adamant about their single particular ideology, so much so that they'd go out and kill people over it. To me it's always seemed like all beliefs have their time and place and to varying degrees.

I still haven't written up my 'wanderer' story, maybe it's about time I do so (although I am uncertain as to my status as a wanderer).

I'd be curious to read it. For me it's the sheer number of coincidences that makes me say, "Well it all fits." It's just hard to believe.

The information you posted above looks very interesting, although I haven't had time to read it. Will do so soon.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on it once you given it read through.

Cheers!

[Lavazza]

Interesting. I've always been deeply skeptical of any work that claims communication with aliens or other paranormal events as being anything more than fantasy or misinterpretation. [...] This kind of thinking makes it very difficult for me to accept the Law of One regardless of how well it meshes with my own weird experience.

I know exactly how you feel, believe me. My waking was not so subtle or over a very long period of time, and when I at first began to research esoteric ideas and looking in to the Law of One material I ran in to many, many what I will call "logic" or "common sense" road blocks. I was beginning to become extremely confused about the nature of reality, and worse, if I was buying in to something false, deluding myself, becoming a crazy person for believing in such ideas.

All you need to do is read the first 30 or 40 pages of book 1 to find a plethora of information that contradicts the mainstream accepted truth about reality. Living in a society like we do live in continues to be a challenge for me on some level, if only because I cannot freely express my chosen beliefs without attracting a degree of ridicule, weather openly expressed or not.

What I have found over time, and we could discuss this quite a bit if you are interested, is that incorporating this type of information in to your life or just choosing to believe it at all is a very personal decision and the way you get there is, I believe, equally personal. Some have the benefit of having direct experience via UFO sightings (or encounters), others experience amazing synchronicity, or any number of things. Then others such as myself have never had that benefit yet feel strangely interested in esoteric ideas. Yet, "Where is the proof!?" the unconscious mind demands to know!

Simply put, and this is my belief, if you require proof you will not find it. For any evidence you collect, and testimony you hear, will always and forever (at least within third density, behind the veil) will almost always have a "rational" explanation. Frustrating, but true, I have found. However, once you let go of the idea of NEEDING proof, and just listen to what your non-rational mind tells you, you may find that you will begin running in to people, ideas, philosophies that resonate strongly and ultimately become equal with or better than what you had previously called 'proof'.

One source of information that I find highly valid is not esoteric at all, the now deceased philosopher Alan Watts. I could recommend some of his works if you are interested, but one of his core statements is that one problem modern man faces is the concept of not trusting the self. We, by default it seems, immediately discredit ourselves at any opportunity, turning instead to an 'expert', 'professional', or 'science' to give us truth. Intuition, resonance, spontaneous thoughts, emotions, these are what we have learned to discard. They cannot be valid in the face of science. But, this is a problem for us. Because if we cannot trust ourselves, is it valid to trust the mis-trust of ourselves? Well then how can we know that we do not know? We can't. (this is a fast summary of his philosophy, he explains it much better).

EDIT: Or another way to boil this down, this time scientifically. What are you? Who are you? Where did you come from? Well, in the beginning so far as we know scientifically, everything was packed down in to a singularity (you and me included) that then suddenly exploded out in to everything that exists (big bang theory). We, as human beings, are a product of the big bang. We are a part of the universe in much the same way that all the stars and planets are. Our atoms came from the same place, we are not from outside of the universe. Therefore, everything we do, everything we say, think, feel, like or dislike is a natural function of the universe. Who then, or what, creates this invalidation of things that come to us naturally? We do. We invalidate it, we have learned to over thousands of years. But is it reasonable to deny a natural part of the universe as invalid?

Working form the assumption that our inner most feelings, perceptions and perspectives have some validity, and especially where our beliefs are concerned, we are freed in a sense. It is a releasing of the logical, and an embrace of the emotional, or perhaps spiritual. (the fact that the universe itself exists is a bit illogical!) So then, what "feels" right to you? Follow the resonance, follow what excites you, and you will always be led towards what is exactly what you need in your life moment by moment.

This attitude does not assume, by the way, that you must believe everything you read. Indeed there are many things that I do not believe. A workable approach that I have discovered along my path is to recognize the futility of finding the absolute truth about something. We will rarely be in a position to make a claim like that and know that we are 100%, no questions asked, absolutely correct. Instead of being forced in to a position where we must say "yes" or "no" to the validity of something, I instead choose to keep it all at an arms' distance and recognize that it may or may not be something that is true, but that I will remain open minded and continue gathering information to support a theory one way or the other, if I am interested in doing so. I only mention this so exhaustively because I have been presented with SO many things that are bizarre, incredible, or impossible sounding in my wakening process that I would often come on to 'hard times' spiritually speaking due to extreme doubting. But I realize, there is no real knowing. To date there is basically zero evidence that Atlantis ever existed for example. Does this mean it did not exist? No, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Maybe it existed. Maybe it didn't. I can't claim to know which is true, nor will I presume to.

Thank you for providing me the opportunity to write this all down in one place. I did not mean to go on so long but some of these ideas have been so life altering for me I feel compelled to share. Please let me know what you think, if you care to.

I'd be curious to read it. For me it's the sheer number of coincidences that makes me say, "Well it all fits." It's just hard to believe.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on it once you given it read through.

You shall have both in good time, hopefully soon as time permits.

Love and light!

[MistaG]

First I'd like to thank you for the well-thought out reply!

What I have found over time, and we could discuss this quite a bit if you are interested, is that incorporating this type of information in to your life or just choosing to believe it at all is a very personal decision and the way you get there is, I believe, equally personal. Some have the benefit of having direct experience via UFO sightings (or encounters), others experience amazing synchronicity, or any number of things. Then others such as myself have never had that benefit yet feel strangely interested in esoteric ideas. Yet, "Where is the proof!?" the unconscious mind demands to know!

This was me a few months ago. No personal experience, but serious interest.

I've even done some legitimate research in to TLEs (writing a software platform to formalize crowd-sourcing methodologies to provide more rigorous constraints on transient data). During this I was confronted with UFOs (meaning all non-naturally occurring atmospheric / astronomic events) as possible transients that had to be fit in to the taxonomy for further categorization.

While working on this I read a number of dialogues where people would pontificate about inter-dimensional creatures, mythological entities, drone crafts, so on and so forth. And I just kept thinking to myself, "Where's the hard data?"

It was only after reading the 1957 RB-47 case, originally investigated by Dr. James McDonald and later Brad Sparks, that I became truly convinced that some UFOs are likely more than naturally occurring or misidentified objects.

Simply put, and this is my belief, if you require proof you will not find it. For any evidence you collect, and testimony you hear, will always and forever (at least within third density, behind the veil) will almost always have a "rational" explanation. Frustrating, but true, I have found. However, once you let go of the idea of NEEDING proof, and just listen to what your non-rational mind tells you, you may find that you will begin running in to people, ideas, philosophies that resonate strongly and ultimately become equal with or better than what you had previously called 'proof'.

While I empathize going with the flow and following personal intuition. I think we can legitimately prove any and all inexplicable transient observations (UFO or otherwise). Amazingly to do this is rather simple:

One would use, for example, the iPhone location services to notify other users within a certain radius of a persons transient observation to distribute the workload of recording numerous angles of photographic data and to rapidly deploy people with additional sensory equipment to the location. Alternatively software could be preloaded on to more expensive equipment to timeshare hardware in the vicinity to auto-record data associated with the event.

Not only would this type of software platform increase public awareness it would maximize the number of people recording data (increasing the number of first-hand reports); decrease lag between a sighting and the time it takes experts with equipment to analyze the event; and give investigative reporters access to up-to-the-second sightings which could have the happy side-effect of a professional camera crew recording transient objects live, up-close and personal.

To minimize false-positives it would be desirable to have the application attempt to automatically rule out known-knowns. For instance if a person is observing the night sky and they see a bright object that isn't moving on the horizon the application could hook the accelerometer and GPS subsystem to determine azimuthal heading (ie/ have the person walk in the direction of the object thus determining N-E-S-W orientation) and then using the tilt-sensor (oriented with the horizon transposed to the position of the object in the night-sky) to calculate altitude. With this the program could quickly search a star-map database to locate night-sky objects with a negative magnitude. Likewise it could query against meteorological databases to check for weather balloon releases to auto-rule out obvious explanations.

Forcing all observers to go through these same steps would add rigor to the recorded observations and therefore make it scientifically tenable. As more people participated the barometer of authenticity would increase.

This process could be repeated with virtually any transient phenomenon.

One source of information that I find highly valid is not esoteric at all, the now deceased philosopher Alan Watts. I could recommend some of his works if you are interested, but one of his core statements is that one problem modern man faces is the concept of not trusting the self. We, by default it seems, immediately discredit ourselves at any opportunity, turning instead to an 'expert', 'professional', or 'science' to give us truth. Intuition, resonance, spontaneous thoughts, emotions, these are what we have learned to discard. They cannot be valid in the face of science. But, this is a problem for us. Because if we cannot trust ourselves, is it valid to trust the mis-trust of ourselves? Well then how can we know that we do not know? We can't. (this is a fast summary of his philosophy, he explains it much better).

I've reflected on this for a little over a year now and I've come to the conclusion that there are three types of confirmation:

1. Internal Confirmation (seeing something strange, belief-logic, faith)
   
2. Appeal to authority / external confirmation (trustworthy sources - including family members / friends, whistleblowers, current authority figures)
   
3. Scientific verification (repeatable tests that any scientist can authenticate along /w peer-review)

Unless I have at a minimum two of the above criteria I'm willing to doubt the truthfulness of an observation. It's only when all three are satisfied that I'm willing to say something is 100% objectively true, but even then though I have to admit my understanding of the observation is very likely inaccurate if not wholly incomplete.

Or another way to boil this down, this time scientifically. What are you? Who are you? Where did you come from? Well, in the beginning so far as we know scientifically, everything was packed down in to a singularity (you and me included) that then suddenly exploded out in to everything that exists (big bang theory). We, as human beings, are a product of the big bang. We are a part of the universe in much the same way that all the stars and planets are. Our atoms came from the same place, we are not from outside of the universe. Therefore, everything we do, everything we say, think, feel, like or dislike is a natural function of the universe. Who then, or what, creates this invalidation of things that come to us naturally? We do. We invalidate it, we have learned to over thousands of years. But is it reasonable to deny a natural part of the universe as invalid?

I would say no thing in its own right is ever invalid.

Over the last year I've found myself in many breathless debates trying to explain to friends in academia that science has the bad habit of "dividing and discarding." I usually find myself saying, "The goal of science shouldn't be to ignore data it should be to understand it in its own right." However I admit there's a catch-22 with this because ontologically "to name something is to divide it."

For instance, if I go up to a person and ask them, "What does 'a few' mean?" Some will say 3. Others will claim it means several. Another group of people will claim it means no more than a handful. And a few pedant literati will say, "not many but more than one!"

The phrase "a few" has many meanings. No dictionary will ever include all the personal definitions that exist.

Likewise no phenomenon, physical manifestation, no one thing can be fully described perfectly because everything is dynamic. Even in the world of computers where we can have a singular sequence that defines an object the human interpretation of it changes the definition.

For instance if I post a picture to a service like Flickr. Immediately upon submitting the photo several smaller resolution versions of the image will be generated that have a different signature from the original - instantly causing differentiation. Also the meaning of the object can be further refined by adding tags and other meta-data to the picture, helping to better qualify what exists abstractly inside the image.

So even though the original picture contains the raw bits it does not possess other information external to it. While I might be able to write a program to identify if the picture has a person in it the application will have a very hard time identifying "Who?"

My point in all this is to show we would have a scientifically recursive process where any division would then result in the study of some new side-branch. So really until all things could be summed together nothing could be understood perfectly.

Which is very likely why a big crunch would be such an illuminating moment because at that point everything could be understood fully by all things. Which is very much the idea behind physicist Frank Tipler's Omega Point.

Then in separating out again, perhaps, these things could start to incorporate new meanings and subtleties.

Working form the assumption that our inner most feelings, perceptions and perspectives have some validity, and especially where our beliefs are concerned, we are freed in a sense. It is a releasing of the logical, and an embrace of the emotional, or perhaps spiritual. (the fact that the universe itself exists is a bit illogical!) So then, what "feels" right to you? Follow the resonance, follow what excites you, and you will always be led towards what is exactly what you need in your life moment by moment.

Beliefs are just as valid if not more so than scientific dissection of them. However when we require less evidence and take on a belief we increase the chance that we're buying in to something that isn't wholly accurate.

For me striving for accuracy is absolutely paramount because it dictates how I grow. Anything I accept in to my tenets of "truth" acts as a pillar for all other thoughts.

This attitude does not assume, by the way, that you must believe everything you read. ... Instead of being forced in to a position where we must say "yes" or "no" to the validity of something, I instead choose to keep it all at an arms' distance and recognize that it may or may not be something that is true, but that I will remain open minded and continue gathering information to support a theory one way or the other, if I am interested in doing so.

This is very much my approach. When a person moves in to a camp they set themselves up to come to prearranged conclusions. I've found as I've gotten older I've taken to scrapbooking every and all things I'm uncertain about. Then every so often I review all the material I've collected and reassess where I stand.

It was fun reading your perspective on things!

*thumbs up*

[ayadew]

The only thing I'm convinced of is that life is exactly what you chose it to be. This was my first step in spiritual revelation and likely the last as I understand this thought more and more.

Metaphysical concepts are interesting of course, but not meaningful to think of in relation to become more loving and comfortable with this existence. When you see all with love, you need not know right or wrong.. or anything, really.

[MistaG]

The only thing I'm convinced of is that life is exactly what you chose it to be. This was my first step in spiritual revelation and likely the last as I understand this thought more and more.

I hate to be pessimistic, but what if someone locked you in a shed for the entirety of your life? The only way this can be seen as a choice is if we accept the notion that before incarnation we predestined ourselves for a life of captivity. I'm not saying this isn't possible, actually the LOO suggests this is how it really works, but once in that scenario choice is clearly out the window.

Metaphysical concepts are interesting of course, but not meaningful to think of in relation to become more loving and comfortable with this existence. When you see all with love, you need not know right or wrong.. or anything, really.

I think metaphysics can provide a different way of understanding the universe and therefore ourselves. Allowing for clearer thinking or at the very least different thinking. I somewhat disagree with your statement that it doesn't help us to become more loving or compassionate because through an understanding of scarcity I've come to the realization that, "To love something is to lack nothing but the permanence of the object."

While I was certainly considerate of other people and I greatly loved those closest to me, it was only through truly internalizing this idea that I came to a sort of "universal love."

[ayadew]

I'm not sure, I don't live that life. Catalyst is here for a reason, I don't think I'd have much an idea of anything locked in a dark room with no stimulus forever. I'd just be in neutral meaninglessness.

I also don't know what love is. If that works for you, that's good! We are all a representation for each other of the sides we don't currently have.

[MistaG]

I'm not sure, I don't live that life. Catalyst is here for a reason, I don't think I'd have much an idea of anything locked in a dark room with no stimulus forever. I'd just be in neutral meaninglessness.

Good answer! It's hard to imagine what that life would be like since we're not living it. Though if I were to guess I'd imagine it would be as you described, sadly meaningless. Which makes me seriously wonder about people born in to such conditions.

I also don't know what love is. If that works for you, that's good! We are all a representation for each other of the sides we don't currently have.

Huh, if you can say, "we are all a representation for each other of the sides we don't currently have," and really get it then how can you say you don't know what love is? Or do you mean this more abstractly?

I've found that ever since I truly internalized the idea of everything being a facet of myself I can't help but see everything outside of me as a reflection of my own actions and behaviors. When I see couples in an embrace I can't help but feel happiness and "love" for the two people. When I see a little child run up to a friend or relative they haven't seen in a long while, throwing their arms around the person to give them a big hug, a warmth comes over me.

Though likewise when I see negative actions the same is true, which is admittedly uncomfortable.

The realization that "we are all a representation [of and] for each other" is the penultimate catalyst for empathy.

[ayadew]

Yes, abstractly I surely have an idea what love is, and it's a great feeling! But we all have different definitions of it.
The negative facets you describe are catalysts. They get stuck in you, and you have to analyze and get comfortable with them.
Most of us incarnated here to get comfortable with these sides.. that's the real work! And it's ugly sometimes.
When things flow through you in 'love' and doesn't get stuck, then you know you've made progress. Some things are easy to see the love in, such as those things you describe.
People killing and mutilating each other; not so much. Not if you focus on the action itself, but if you focus and see the people as perfect in themselves and part of a world which is experiencing itself, then it's easier.

[Questioner]

Anyways I started this thread both to better organize my own thoughts, but also to get a sense of what convinced others here that the Law of One is accurate. Perhaps hearing other peoples stories will help me better come to grips with this strange new world I find myself navigating

Dustin, I'm not able to comprehend all of your material. (I'm glad you share it anyway!) But as much as I can get out of it, I agree: It appears that your own study was leading to you Law of One type understandings.

Perhaps some of your discoveries were channeled, in the form of equations or concepts or process flows you "tuned into," without your realizing that was what was happening?

As for me, I'm not convinced. I'm also not unconvinced. Let me try to explain. I've not had any experience I can remember that would certainly prove to me this material, or any spiritual material, is true. It takes an act of will for me to choose to have faith in the material. However, it makes more sense to me to choose faith in this material than in any other explanations I've seen of spiritual truth.

Therefore I choose to have this faith, which I define as wholeheartedly living my life as though this material is true, until and unless I find something more comprehensive, compelling, consistent, and empowering. I also choose faith in several Buddhist, Taoist, U-U, Quaker, astrological, quantum physics, and Native American concepts to the extent I understand them and they meet these criteria. As far as I can tell, all of these are matters of faith in unproven interpretations and conclusion about proven observations.

The longer I live this life, the more certain I feel that what matters more is the quality of care we have for ourselves and for other lives. I feel this is much more important than whether we have the right doctrine in our heads.

Later - perhaps through next year, perhaps starting through the holidays - I want to offer a series of topics here exploring faith, doctrine, love, reason, cult abuses, etc., both to explore my own personal journey and to learn from others. If I get around to all that, I'd love to discover more about your perspective.

---

...it's easy to see why I'm highly dubious of people claiming communication with other lifeforms.

Have you read 'Secrets of the UFO,' a free download from this site? It's the history of Don and Carla's explorations, pretty much leading up to the Ra contact. I think you'd enjoy it and find much to ponder and discuss.

---

Simply put, and this is my belief, if you require proof you will not find it.

Lavazza, it appears that you and I come to this material from the same type of perspective. Thank you very much for your post. I would like to take you up on your offer of some Alan Watts recommendations.

---

One would use, for example, the iPhone location services to notify other users...

I think that's a great idea. "Event hunter team" could be a killer app for the iPhone. It could be used by journalists, tourists, or anyone trying to cross-reference their pictures and experiences, not just UFO explorers. Although once it's installed,the user would certainly be equipped to help investigate UFO anomalies. It sure would have come in handy with the lights over Norway.

What does TLE stand for?

[MistaG]

Dustin, I'm not able to comprehend all of your material. (I'm glad you share it anyway!)

If there's anything that doesn't make sense please ask! This prose description might help.

I'm much more comfortable talking about the full idea here because many of the notions bleed outside the realm of western philosophy in to the esoteric. Since the idea virtually mimics the 'Law of One,' of all the communities out there, I believe LOO'ers are the most likely to be able to grasp the full extents of the concept.

But as much as I can get out of it, I agree: It appears that your own study was leading to you Law of One type understandings.

Perhaps some of your discoveries were channeled, in the form of equations or concepts or process flows you "tuned into," without your realizing that was what was happening?

I'm somewhat uncomfortable talking about the experience, as I still don't understand it, but I think there's a distinct possibility that what I gleaned involved some form of external source. Actually ... I'd go so far as to say I'd be shocked if this wasn't the case. Maybe at some point I'll feel more at ease discussing the details.

For now though it'll have to suffice that while the idea started in a completely rational manner it quickly became very bizarre.

As for me, I'm not convinced. I'm also not unconvinced. Let me try to explain. I've not had any experience I can remember that would certainly prove to me this material, or any spiritual material, is true. It takes an act of will for me to choose to have faith in the material. However, it makes more sense to me to choose faith in this material than in any other explanations I've seen of spiritual truth.

Therefore I choose to have this faith, which I define as wholeheartedly living my life as though this material is true, until and unless I find something more comprehensive, compelling, consistent, and empowering. I also choose faith in several Buddhist, Taoist, U-U, Quaker, astrological, quantum physics, and Native American concepts to the extent I understand them and they meet these criteria. As far as I can tell, all of these are matters of faith in unproven interpretations and conclusion about proven observations.

I like the wording here, "faith in unproven interpretations and conclusion about proven observations."

A proven observation can be entirely subjective. If I see and interact with something it's then proven beyond a doubt that what I had come in contact with is true. This can be thought of as being subjectively-objective. Had I the ability to share these direct thoughts with others it could then be seen as objective by those who hadn't the privelege of the direct experience. Unfortunately we lack this talent so the only way to go about showing this subjectively-objective reality to others is to come up with a case that's repeatedly testable or to simply have the good fortune of having others present reinforcing the strength of the original observation.

Meaning for something to be externally-objective it requires at a minimum one external confirmation. For it to be scientifically-objective requires repeated confirmation. So there can be three overarching types of objectiveness:

1. subjective objectivity (lone observation)
   
2. external objectivity (more than one individual or device)
   
3. scientific objectivity (infinitely observable)

Usually when people discuss objective versus subjective we simplify. If we hear "subjective" we immediately assume the person has no real basis other than belief guiding that principle. This is frequently a poor assumption because in many cases there's actually something tangible that the person encountered that made it subjectively objective, not simply wishful thinking.

Likewise something can be scientifically objective, but that doesn't mean we understand the observation. However since it's scientifically objective many people accept initial explanations if only because the observation has proven through repeated tests to be valid. This is even worse than being dismissive of poorly quantified observations because now the person is accepting an explanation for an observation because of the type of objectivity used to verify the observation.

These types of biases and poor understanding often lead to a scenario similar to the one described in "The Blind Men and the Elephant" by John Godfrey Saxe,

---

It was six men of Indostan, To learning much inclined, Who went to see the Elephant, (Though all of them were blind), That each by observation, Might satisfy his mind.

The First approached the Elephant, And happening to fall, Against his broad and sturdy side, At once began to bawl: "God bless me! but the Elephant, Is very like a wall!"

The Second, feeling of the tusk, Cried, "Ho! what have we here, So very round and smooth and sharp? To me 'tis mighty clear, This wonder of an Elephant, Is very like a spear!"

The Third approached the animal, And happening to take, The squirming trunk within his hands, Thus boldly up and spake: "I see," quoth he, "the Elephant, Is very like a snake!"

The Fourth reached out an eager hand, And felt about the knee. "What most this wondrous beast is like, Is mighty plain," quoth he; " `Tis clear enough the Elephant, Is very like a tree!"

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear, Said: "E'en the blindest man, Can tell what this resembles most; Deny the fact who can, This marvel of an Elephant, Is very like a fan!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun, About the beast to grope, Than seizing on the swinging tail, That fell within his scope, "I see," quoth he, "the Elephant, is very like a rope!"

And so the these men of Indostan, Disputed loud and long, Each in his own opinion, Exceeding stiff and strong, Though each was partly right, And all were in the wrong!

Moral: So oft in theologic wars, The disputants, I ween, Rail on in utter ignorance, Of what each other mean, And prate about an Elephant, Not one of them has seen!

---

The longer I live this life, the more certain I feel that what matters more is the quality of care we have for ourselves and for other lives. I feel this is much more important than whether we have the right doctrine in our heads.

Later - perhaps through next year, perhaps starting through the holidays - I want to offer a series of topics here exploring faith, doctrine, love, reason, cult abuses, etc., both to explore my own personal journey and to learn from others. If I get around to all that, I'd love to discover more about your perspective.

It's interesting to imagine a planet of people all caring more about the state of others than their personal well-being. If such a place were to exist then no one individual would ever be in a position worse than anyone else.

However it also makes me wonder, would we simply idle ourselves and not work towards better conquering the elements to attempt to provide a better outcome for future generations? I discussed this with a friend and he related an anecdote about his ancestors who lived in a poor Indian village that was quiet, impoverished, but peaceful. It took my friends grandfather to whip them in to a state of productivity increasing the habitability of the residences, improving the quality of the water supply, and in general the overall health of the community.

So it's interesting that in this thought experiment, if we all care about each other equally, then we can also see no one person would force another in to work. However at the same time in allowing others this unrestricted freedom we then have the potential for regression. Not because the people in this community care less about one another, but because not all actions have equal benefit for all people. If an entire community were to truly buy in to the philosophy of "the simple life" it would have the potential to hurt the quality of life for all people, present and future, because no one would be working towards preparing for monsoons, factoring in structural designs to account for earthquakes, understanding strains of population growth, etc.

Thus if one person in the village urged his family members and friends, out of love and kindness to prepare for these things, but was ignored, despite spending much of his own time trying to solve these problems, we can then see how the seeds for discontent might be sown. It wouldn't be because of a lack of love, or wanting to help, but due to differing ideology in a world where entropy (observably) has the final word.

Have you read 'Secrets of the UFO,' a free download from this site? It's the history of Don and Carla's explorations, pretty much leading up to the Ra contact. I think you'd enjoy it and find much to ponder and discuss.

I'll have to check it out. My investigation in to UFOs has primarily been in to official documentation either through Blue Book, Project Sign / Grudge, CNES / GEIPAN, Pennine, Hessdalen, FOIA archives, Project Identification, Jung's treatise, Quintanilla's draft, Condon's papers, AIAA papers, etc.

I usually prefer to mull over the what's been officially recognized first. Then I'm willing to wade in to material that's more speculative. It allows me to compare and contrast the quality of what's supposed to be the "official" analysis against that of the outliers. What's surprising is that with the UFO phenomenon I've found, for the first time, the non-official position is more tenable from a scientific position than that of the "professional" explanation.

However I think with any area of study that's steeped in so much ambiguity it behooves the researcher to be extra cautious about what's accepted as fact.

I think that's a great idea. "Event hunter team" could be a killer app for the iPhone.

The idea has a lot of enthusiasts. Sadly I don't have much time for it these days.

What does TLE stand for?

Transient Luminous Events.

This is just fancy terminology for uncommon forms of atmospheric lightning. Some well known upper atmospheric TLEs include blue jets (in the stratosphere), elves (high mesosphere to low thermosphere), red sprites (mesosphere), and trolls. The Hessdalen lights are also associated with TLEs.

Really anything that's an anomalous light source fits in to the bucket of TLE, but atmospheric scientists are usually fairly guarded about UFOs (as paranormal or intelligently controlled craft) and therefore want nothing to do with such observations.

[Questioner]

If there's anything that doesn't make sense please ask!

I appreciate that but I think you should really have a separate thread about your work. I agree that this forum is where you'll likely find people open and appreciative about your own material.

"What convinced you?" is a great topic for each person's own perspective as it relates to the Law of One material. I'd like to see that topic as the focus of this thread, and have a different topic for the step-by-step exposition of your material.

When I get around to posting my topics about the nature of truth, I hope you'll like to continue the conversation of different types of objectivity.

I had always seen the elephant story attributed to Kipling.

The Ra material does mention the idea that if life is too easy, little progress is made. This ties into your discussion of the village.

I like the TLE term, and I encourage you to not make any assumptions about Don Elkins' UFO research before you've read his book.

[Lavazza]

Great responses all around, I think this is a fantastic thread!

While I empathize going with the flow and following personal intuition. I think we can legitimately prove any and all inexplicable transient observations (UFO or otherwise).

I hope you are right! I should back up and say that indeed, such phenomena as flying saucers have been detected on radar and eye-witnessed by credible people (airline pilots, military persons, etc). For my money, they're as real as the people who have seen them. Still, for certain individuals proof will not exist until they land on the white house lawn. Even if they shook hands with an ET they would later just believe that they hallucinated. And it then gets doubly hard to offer proof to someone else, even when you have credible witnesses and radar evidence, radioactive spots on the ground where they have landed, etc. due to the very large taboo our society holds against the serious notion of UFOs. (I suppose this paragraph is more of a rant than speaking to your point. )

One would use, for example, the iPhone location services to notify other users within a certain radius of a persons transient observation to distribute the workload of recording numerous angles of photographic data and to rapidly deploy people with additional sensory equipment to the location. [...] This process could be repeated with virtually any transient phenomenon.

Sounds great to me! Let me know if or when you develop such an application, I'll be the first to download it on to my phone.

I've reflected on this for a little over a year now and I've come to the conclusion that there are three types of confirmation:

1. Internal Confirmation (seeing something strange, belief-logic, faith)
   
2. Appeal to authority / external confirmation (trustworthy sources - including family members / friends, whistleblowers, current authority figures)
   
3. Scientific verification (repeatable tests that any scientist can authenticate along /w peer-review)

Unless I have at a minimum two of the above criteria I'm willing to doubt the truthfulness of an observation. It's only when all three are satisfied that I'm willing to say something is 100% objectively true, but even then though I have to admit my understanding of the observation is very likely inaccurate if not wholly incomplete.

I think you've got a valid list here. For myself personally, I would be willing to "believe" after the first bullet point was satisfied, so long as I had a clear enough view or direct enough experience to disqualify other explanations. This is common to those people who have had the near death experience. Of course to be fair, there are some who have had NDEs and later chosen to discount their experiences. The bottom line as I see it is that everyone has their own unique level of evidence or proof they require to believe something.

I would say no thing in its own right is ever invalid.

Here here!

Which is very likely why a big crunch would be such an illuminating moment because at that point everything could be understood fully by all things. Which is very much the idea behind physicist Frank Tipler's Omega Point.

Then in separating out again, perhaps, these things could start to incorporate new meanings and subtleties.

Quoted for agreement. The idea of the bang/crunch pattern is something we've discussed on the forum before to an extent. Based on my LOO readings, I interpret it as the start and ending of our Octave of experience.

Beliefs are just as valid if not more so than scientific dissection of them. However when we require less evidence and take on a belief we increase the chance that we're buying in to something that isn't wholly accurate.

For me striving for accuracy is absolutely paramount because it dictates how I grow. Anything I accept in to my tenets of "truth" acts as a pillar for all other thoughts.

This is something I have put thought in to over the last year of my awakening. I am still undecided on the matter. While I agree it makes good common sense to attempt belief in only those things that you suspect are actually real, at the same time I have read from other sources that our entire existence is holographic and multidimensional in nature so that what you experience in life is exactly what you agree to experience, based on your unconscious beliefs. Assuming an infinite number of near-exact copies of myself exist in an equal number of infinite other realities, all things are experienced on every level. The reality that I know as true, here and now, typing this message out to you may just be one infinite small fraction of the whole that is choosing to experience this reality now. In another reality UFOs might not exist. Now then, this is a large leap I am taking and sounds very sci-fi, but like so many other things I do not have very good reason to disbelieve it in the face of insufficient evidence. And, as someone in my position who has not much to lose (such as credibility) in my workaday life I admit that I do not hold the candle of scrutiny as close as perhaps others might. As ayadew mentioned, I generally feel that how we act towards ourselves and others are more important than what we believe is true about the nature of reality. Then again, I am not fully decided on this part of my personal philosophy. But forgive me, I am ranting again without too clear a focus!

This is very much my approach. When a person moves in to a camp they set themselves up to come to prearranged conclusions. I've found as I've gotten older I've taken to scrapbooking every and all things I'm uncertain about. Then every so often I review all the material I've collected and reassess where I stand.

It was fun reading your perspective on things!

I fully agree, although it took some pain on my part to figure this out! (just do a search on this forum for my posts about pyramids, moon bases, and belief in general... good grief)

Glad to compare notes with you!

---

I hate to be pessimistic, but what if someone locked you in a shed for the entirety of your life? The only way this can be seen as a choice is if we accept the notion that before incarnation we predestined ourselves for a life of captivity. I'm not saying this isn't possible, actually the LOO suggests this is how it really works, but once in that scenario choice is clearly out the window.

As hard as it is to wrap our minds around, indeed, every major theme we run in to is basically a product of pre-incarnate decisions. This is not just espoused in the Law of One, but also in the works of Michael Newton, a now retired hypnotherapist who explored the inbetween life stages for well over 30 years. He's written two books that talk about this in great detail, 'Journey of Souls' and 'Destiny of Souls'.

Although it would seem pointless to chose to become a captive for your entire life, it actually may be exactly what that person needs in their overall life to find balance in some way. Maybe that person was boisterous or overly something or other in 10 previous lives, or was themselves the cause of someone elses captivity in a similar fashion. I don't believe in some divine Karmic force, but I do believe we as disincarnate souls have the clearest picture of what we need to evolve in the best way possible.

Also, you never lose the ability to chose things. You may be interested in this: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spie...22,00.html

The story of a man who was assumed to be in a vegetative state for over 20 years, while in actuality being fully conscious. Before his accident he was highly active, in to sports, etc. You could only image the pain that person had to go through, especially as doctors one by one gave up trying to communicate with him. In the article, he says that he listened to people talking and made their conversations in to stories to tell himself, often meditated and daydreamed to escape his isolation. In other words, he never stopped making choices, in this case choosing to remain sane. I will agree he had severely limited the extent of his choices, but that was again, his choice to begin with.

---

The longer I live this life, the more certain I feel that what matters more is the quality of care we have for ourselves and for other lives. I feel this is much more important than whether we have the right doctrine in our heads.

I also believe this to be true. Of course it is fun to try and figure it all out... the "big picture"... but failing that, as I think we always will, it's best to focus on evolving ourselves.

Later - perhaps through next year, perhaps starting through the holidays - I want to offer a series of topics here exploring faith, doctrine, love, reason, cult abuses, etc., both to explore my own personal journey and to learn from others. If I get around to all that, I'd love to discover more about your perspective.

I can't wait to see the threads appear. These are things I have also put some energy in to thinking about, especially as I opened my belief system up to the esoteric, alternative spirituality, channeled material, UFOs, prophecy and all the rest. At first I would frequently accuse myself of getting involved in cult related activity, until I learned to relax more. I'd love to mull over the issue, and others you mentioned.

Have you read 'Secrets of the UFO,' a free download from this site? It's the history of Don and Carla's explorations, pretty much leading up to the Ra contact. I think you'd enjoy it and find much to ponder and discuss.

Wanted to add that I just ordered it last week in book form. Synchronicity? Hmm.

Lavazza, it appears that you and I come to this material from the same type of perspective. Thank you very much for your post. I would like to take you up on your offer of some Alan Watts recommendations.

Happy to do so my friend. And glad to find others who have walked a similar path. As far as Alan Watts, the best place to get started is at the Alan Watts podcast page. (http://feeds.feedburner.com/alanwatts) There listed is the three most recent podcasts which are about 10-15 minutes in length. I believe if you subscribe to the podcast in iTunes you can download all the archived segments, which is what I would really recommend. Failing that, if you like, send me an e-mail at eric@eric3d..com and I'll be happy to e-mail them to you since I have them on my ipod already. You can also go to http://deoxy.org/watts.htm where there is a large collection of material, but very poorly organized. There are also lots of his lectures of youtube and Google video. If you want to read some of his books, I might recommend 'The Wisdom of Insecurity', or 'The Book - On the taboo against knowing who you are'. Those are two I own but have not yet read in depth. (but I know they will be excellent!) You can also see a complete listing of his work and find much info about the man, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Watts

[MistaG]

I've been finishing up reading book 3 and I just found another element that makes a great deal of sense when viewed through the philosophical lens of scarcity. This further confirms that the LOO is accurate. In book 3, pg 122, Ra says,

Glory in the strength of your polarization & allow others of opposite polarity to similarly do so, seeing the great humor of this polarity & its complications in view of the unification in sixth-density of these two parts.

Amazingly if you look at point (a) in Fig. 1 (the first diagram), which indicates the start of the 6th density as seen in Fig. 5, you'll see that what happens at the boundary between 5th to 6th is:

1. life as exigency of 1
   
2. life as a value of 0
   
3. life as a good of 0
   

This means at the cross-over life as the 'self' is reborn (!!), natural exigency comes to a close (i.e. nature has been tamed), and peak choice ensues.

The similarity between these two ideas are staggering.

[Questioner]

Later ... I want to offer a series of topics here....

I can't wait to see the threads appear. These are things I have also put some energy in to thinking about, especially as I opened my belief system up to the esoteric, alternative spirituality, channeled material, UFOs, prophecy and all the rest. At first I would frequently accuse myself of getting involved in cult related activity, until I learned to relax more. I'd love to mull over the issue, and others you mentioned.

I know that they'll start with "Q1: What is reality? What is truth?" and be posted in the "Life on planet earth" forum. I definitely do plan to discuss how to identify cult related activity.

I'll look forward to following up your Alan Watts suggestions next year.
The forum software filtered your email address, if I decide to email you I'll need to get your address via private message. I read "The book: the taboo" and enjoyed it, maybe a year before getting into the Law of One material. I think that helped me to better appreciate the Law of One.

---

The similarity between these two ideas are staggering.

I find it helpful for you to make these comparisons between the Law of One material and your own work. Thank you for that.

[MistaG]

The similarity between these two ideas are staggering.

I find it helpful for you to make these comparisons between the Law of One material and your own work. Thank you for that.

Glad it helps! Really the easiest way to understand the idea from the Law of One perspective is to absorb Fig. 5. If you notice at the bottom of the diagram I added a helpful ruler titled, "Densities." You can use that to map to any quadrant in Fig. 1, 2, 3 & 4. For example:

Q2 in Fig. 1 represents density 8 and 1.
Q3 represents density 2 & 3.
Q4 represents density 4 & 5.
Q1 represents density 6 and 7.

Ra seems to fundamentally understand that there's something past 8, but I don't think their social memory complex realizes what. Basically I've put together a best guess of what that is in Fig. 4.

If you feel me enumerating the similarities between the two ideas is helpful I'll post additional correlations. Though I find it a bit funny distinguishing between the LOO and this scarcity-theory because at this point, after having recorded dozens upon dozens of hits, it's pretty obvious to me they both represent the same thing.

Which is to say I have a hard time thinking of the above material as my own work. Whatever it is, is so much vastly bigger than me to call it my own would be like saying the first person who came up with the idea of cosmology should be credited with the idea of the universe.

[Lavazza]

Hello MistaG,

I have not abandoned you Just still very busy with the holiday season. I had some small bits of time to browse Jean-Paul Sartre's wikipedia page, but that's about all so far. I am very interested in seeing how this work pairs with the Law of One information, as I am always interested in finding external validations when the chance comes up. The way I see it, a universal truth should permeate and filter in to all aspects of society, even societies that live in densities that are heavily veiled.

I wanted to ask you quickly the origin of screen shots you've put in to the first post. I presume these were put together by someone in more recent times who was aware of both TLOO material and Sartre's? I suspect so because in the first pane the terminology "service to self" is used on the left hand side, and I thought that it was more LOO related than coincidence. Have you compared TLOO to Sartre's original texts on scarcity, or is there any chance that the above charts/diagrams are less accurate in favor of someone wanting to find specific meanings? You've probably already considered these things, but I just wanted to throw them out there so that we can be clear about the Sartre/LOO connection before moving on.

cheers! Hope you are having a good holiday thus far!

[MistaG]

Hello MistaG,

I have not abandoned you Just still very busy with the holiday season. I had some small bits of time to browse Jean-Paul Sartre's wikipedia page, but that's about all so far. I am very interested in seeing how this work pairs with the Law of One information, as I am always interested in finding external validations when the chance comes up. The way I see it, a universal truth should permeate and filter in to all aspects of society, even societies that live in densities that are heavily veiled.

I agree. If something is claimed to be universally true there should be correlations all over the place.

I wanted to ask you quickly the origin of screen shots you've put in to the first post. I presume these were put together by someone in more recent times who was aware of both TLOO material and Sartre's? I suspect so because in the first pane the terminology "service to self" is used on the left hand side, and I thought that it was more LOO related than coincidence. Have you compared TLOO to Sartre's original texts on scarcity, or is there any chance that the above charts/diagrams are less accurate in favor of someone wanting to find specific meanings?

The diagrams were put together by me back in the August time-frame well before I knew anything about the Law of One. This is why I was so shocked when I found the LOO. Not only were the ideas similar it used the same terminology (as you noted "service to self") that I was struggling with in an attempt to convey the idea to other people. Frankly I would have thought the Law of One was all a con if it didn't correlate so tightly with this idea and the, for lack of a better word, "visions" that occurred to me back in July / August.

Even more weird I keep seeing something like this:



Which seems to fit with notions of dimensionality of objects being composed of an infinite series of points spread out over a space to then create a geometrical object (i.e. similar to the banach-tarski paradox). Where in the case of the picture the 1st dimensional point leads to the 2nd dimensional plane, 2nd to 3rd, and then there's a 4-th dimensional object that's then the natural off-shoot of the 3rd; on and on ad-infinitum.

But back to your questions. Really Sartre's work is terribly incomplete on what scarcity truly represents. Jean Paul Sartre described life as disjunction in thought between an imperative, a value and a good - depending upon where a person resides in the economic class system. Yet beneath these three ways of viewing life lie one original source: All of my actions are for the good of myself. It is only thus that the importance to self of one's own life decreases in value as economic power increases. So when I can easily provide myself with food and shelter, I need no longer think about preserving my own life all the time. Now I have the luxury of thinking of other things -- perhaps other people's lives as well as my own.

Quoting Elizabeth Bowman and Robert Stone's summary of a 1965 Cornell lecture on "Sartre's Morality and History," Sartre summed all of this and concluded,

Life in the biological sense can either be an imperative, a value, or a good, depending on the social class of the agent. For the unfavored, life is a fundamental exigency, an imperative. For the middle class, it is a value to be produced and reproduced. For the privileged, it is a good that is automatically preserved by the labor of others and, as such, is a means for realizing other supposedly more worthy norms.

From this it can be seen that Sartre realized that there's a layer of reality that permeates all things causing them to rise to greatness having to first fight through exigency, then life as a value to be produced & reproduced, and finally life as a good.

Sadly Sartre stopped there and then went off to explore "Being and Nothingness."

Really I just picked up where he left off. Taking this idea of what scarcity represents and then gave it a mathematical treatment (which was when the big realization of what this all means occurred to me) to illustrate that life as a value, life as a good, and life as exigency are functions of one another meaning there's a sort of class-system built in to the very fabric of reality.

I call attention to Sartre's work because it serves as an excellent starting point to give people an in-road so they can understand a foundational piece of this idea without me having to rehash the whole thing. It's also easier for people to accept the idea, without having to get in to many needless debates, since Sartre is considered by many to be one of the preeminent philosopher's of our time.

You've probably already considered these things, but I just wanted to throw them out there so that we can be clear about the Sartre/LOO connection before moving on.

Actually I have no philosophical background. I'm an engineer. So for me to have this idea before being exposed to Sartre, before being exposed to the LOO, before being exposed to any mystical / esoteric areas, is ... well ... hard to understand.

cheers! Hope you are having a good holiday thus far!

Same! Have a fun New Year!

-Dustin

[Lavazza]

This is fascinating work. So you compiled all of this material together without having read the Law of One? That is incredible! I wish we could sit down at a coffee shop and talk the whole thing out, for I feel it is going to take me a long while to absorb all of this material and understand it properly (you don't happen to be in the LA area, hmm? ) I love reading about physics and cosmology, but I am also not mathematical / engineering inclined (I work in the arts). Nevertheless, I shall give it all of my sincere efforts! Sooner or later I shall be able to offer some thoughts here.

[MistaG]

This is fascinating work. So you compiled all of this material together without having read the Law of One? That is incredible!

The entire thing blipped in, not as a small dribble, but all at once. It was probably the most overwhelming thing I've ever experienced. It literally knocked me out for most of the month of August. There was a large degree of high-strangeness that all occurred after realizing the idea and it just wouldn't stop. Thankfully now it's mostly subsided and I can just think about it on a more rational, even-headed level.

I wish we could sit down at a coffee shop and talk the whole thing out, for I feel it is going to take me a long while to absorb all of this material and understand it properly (you don't happen to be in the LA area, hmm? )

As a matter of fact, yes! I'll send you a PM. I'd love to talk to someone who truly grasps what this thing actually represents. It's been extremely frustrating trying to relay this information to buddies who are professors (one teaches philosophy at the UW another CS at USC), other engineer types, and family / friends who have academic backgrounds who just stare at the idea in bewilderment.

I love reading about physics and cosmology, but I am also not mathematical / engineering inclined (I work in the arts). Nevertheless, I shall give it all of my sincere efforts! Sooner or later I shall be able to offer some thoughts here.

Really the cosmological view of this thing was just an attempt for me to ground it in something I already understood to see if it worked. I was actually hoping at the time I could disprove myself so I could go about returning to my old materialist / objectivist view of reality. It had the complete opposite effect.

Any critiques would be extremely welcome!

[MistaG]

I recently started book 4 and found another striking similarity to S.H. on pg. 11,

Questioner: Then we have a third density that is, comparatively speaking, the twinkling of an eye, the snap of a finger in time compared to the others. Why is the third density cycled so extremely rapidly compared to the first and second?

Ra: I am Ra. The third density is a choice.

Questioner: Third density, then, compared to the rest of the densities, all of them, is nothing but a uniquely short period of what we consider to be time and is for the purpose of this choice. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is precisely correct. The prelude to choice must encompass the laying of the foundation, the establishment of the illusion and the viability of that which can be made spiritually viable. The remainder of the densities is continuous refining of the choice.

If you look at Fig. 2 you'll see that I call out Q3 (which represents density 2 & 3) as being absent of choice. Choice defined in this scenario as nature ultimately having final say over personal desire or will. One way that we overcome this is through technology and science. Allowing us to slowly whittle away nature and gain more options.

While this might seem completely at odds with what Ra is saying it's important to understand when I say "End Choice" or "End Self" or "End Natural Exigency" it doesn't necessarily mean these things are entirely removed such that they no longer exist. For instance, overcoming self at the transition from Q3 to Q4 (or density 3 to 4) means complete self-empowerment and thus no reason to have to vie for "self" (to arrive at this conclusion requires an understanding of Fig. 3). Overcoming nature (i.e. End Natural Exigency) means complete control over an outcome irregardless of nature's rules. Likewise overcoming choice at the transition from Q2 to Q3 (density 1 to 2) means being in a situation where a person can will a particular outcome, but not see it manifest. Thus choice as enactment is extremely limited.

In understanding this it means that each quarter through the lack of a particular quality determines how it will manifest in its creation. Seen another way the lack of choice as enactment now determines how we attempt to bring such a thing in to existence. If you can understand this, it means that through the end of a particular quality the characteristic is fully realized and thus even stronger in someways than when it naturally did exist.

Meaning 3rd density is the truest form of personal choice, due to the veil, which allows for us to make a decision completely of our own design because we have no foreknowledge, lack hindsight, and possess minuscule power. Once all options become available the path becomes more clear and thus choice is gradually removed despite us having more power or choice to enact whatever we will on reality.

The remainder of the densities is continuous refining of the choice.

If you note in Fig. 2, Q4 through Q2, representing densities 4 - 8 as well as including the next 1st density (see Fig. 5), all have "Choice" activated. So this definitely corresponds with the idea of a continuous refining of choice.

[MistaG]

And another!

Questioner: Then did this particular Logos that we experience plan for this polarity and know all about it prior to its plan? I suspect that this is what happened.

Ra: I am Ra. This is quite correct.

Questioner: In that case, as a Logos, you would have an advantage of selecting the form of acceleration, you might say, of spiritual evolution by planning what we call the major archetypical philosophical foundations and planning these as a function of the polarity that would be gained in third density. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is exquisitely correct.

(Book 4, pg 19)

If you look at Fig. 3 you'll see that the end-point of a sentience determines its polarity. For instance, in the scientism universe, starting at +y, results in a sentience working to overcome nature which reaches its apex at +x. Likewise a sentience starting in the "group universe" (at -x), where the only thing that's insurmountable is all things at peace, reaches its peak at +y.

These two philosophical schools represent positive polarity.

A universe where all things are naturally self ordering, and thus these sentience's start with "plenty," (at -y) ends in an attempt to overcome this reality of creationism with randomness and disorder (at -x). Similarly sentience's that start in a world of pure aesthetic, born knowing only self and possessing complete power to affect any change they want (beginning at +x), end their existence in an attempt to attain complete self-empowerment and "voluptuous pleasure" (at -y). These underlying principles clearly represent negative polarity as the end-point.

While these ideas may seem easy to grasp, it's not so simple, and amazingly Ra picks up on this a few lines down,

Questioner: In that case, it seems that a thorough knowledge of the precise nature of these philosophical foundations would be of primary importance to the study of evolution of mind, body, and spirit, and I would like to carefully go through each, starting with the mind. Is this agreeable with Ra?

Ra: I am Ra. This is agreeable with two requests which must be made. Firstly, that an attempt be made to state the student’s grasp of each archetype. We may then comment. We cannot teach/learn to the extent of learn/teaching. Secondly, we request that it be constantly kept before the mind, as the candle before the eye, that each mind/body/spirit complex shall and should and, indeed, must perceive each archetype, if you use this convenient term, in its own way. Therefore, you may see that precision is not the goal; rather the quality of general concept complex perception is the goal.

When I was first trying to express this idea I didn't want to condemn the self-ordering creationist reality and self-universe as inherently "evil" because it's easy to conflate negative polarity as implying a "bad" thing.

To understand this imagine "complete self-empowerment" as "complete self-empowerment of all other-selves." Viewed in this manner it's easy to see an extremely positive conclusion for the end of the self universe. Likewise if overcoming all choice at the end of the creationism universe is for the purpose of giving all creatures an opportunity to feel real accomplishment, in the sense that achieving things is inherently hard, then similarly this isn't negative because it's for the purpose of empowering the individual.

To further illustrate this point we can also imagine the positive polarity in a negative manner. Consider, for instance, a world where all people strive for unity, but where they go about accomplishing this in a manner similar to the Borg. Such a society would thrive on stripping the free-will from others, forcibly adding them to the collective; thus perverting an otherwise peaceful and altruistic goal.

To try to account for this variability of positive and negative results, which is different from polarity, I added the Z-axis to Fig. 1 representing consequence.

I should note, however, it's very likely rare for polarity to not match consequence because the cards are stacked a particular way based on the starting point of the given reality. It's really only the central universe that has the capability of overcoming all things in a balanced-fashion because it has no predisposition towards negative or positive results.

[MistaG]

Going back to the 1st book, on pg. 138, I just re-read something that I think is rather important and yet another indicator of the veracity of the Ra material,

Questioner: Then can you tell me how the galaxy and planetary systems were formed?

Ra: I am Ra. You must imagine a great leap of thought in this query, for at the last query the physical, as you call, it, universes were not yet born. The energies moved in increasingly intelligent patterns until the individualization of various energies emanating from the creative principle of intelligent infinity became such as to be co-Creators. Thus the so-called physical matter began. The concept of light is instrumental in grasping this great leap of thought as this vibrational distortion of infinity is the building block of that which is known as matter, the light being intelligent and full of energy, thus being the first distortion of intelligent infinity which was called by the creative principle.

This light of love was made to have in its occurrences of being certain characteristics, among them the infinite whole paradoxically described by the straight line, as you would call it. This paradox is responsible for the shape of the various physical illusion entities you call solar systems, galaxies, and planets of revolving and tending towards the lenticular.

I'm not sure if many people here are familiar with Euler's Identity (e^(i*π) + 1 = 0), but if you are then you're probably aware that the exponential function e^z can be defined as the limit of (1 + z/N)^N, as N approaches infinity, and thus e^iπ is the limit of (1 + iπ/N)^N.

So, in the below animation, N takes various increasing values from 1 to 100. Thus the computation of (1 + iπ/N)^N is displayed as the combined effect of N repeated multiplications in the complex plane, with the final point being the actual value of (1 + iπ/N)^N. It can then be seen that as N gets larger (1 + iπ/N)^N it approaches the limit of −1.



What this shows is going from an otherwise straight line we naturally converge on the geometric curved representation of π. This is exactly what Ra is describing, "the infinite whole paradoxically described by the straight line ... This paradox is responsible for the shape of the various physical illusion entities you call solar systems, galaxies, and planets of revolving and tending towards the lenticular."

I find this so compelling because when I first started exploring S.H. I intuitively saw it implied all things were a single unit. To understand this I imagined a logarithmic spiral coming from 0 as the starting point creating a circle or the polar coordinate system.

To try and illustrate this on a more abstract level to a group of mathematically-minded friends, I threw together the following demonstration:

(1) a + b = a - b ⇒
(2) b = (a - a) - b ⇒
(3) 2b = (a - a) ⇒
(4) b = (a - a) / 2 ⇒
(5) b = 0

where b = 0 is the additive identity. What many neglect to notice however is that even though,

(6) a + 3 = a - 3, is a false statement, we can say that since ∀A: ∅ ⊆ A, we know 3 has in it the empty set (∅). This means we have a mechanism to make the statement meaningful. We evaluate this by taking the false terms and allow them nullify each other:
(7) +3 = -3, is false, and thus A ≠ A, implies the terms cancel leaving us with ∅.

In standard set-theoretic definition of natural numbers, we use sets to model the natural numbers. So in this context, zero (or the additive identity as equal to 'b') is modeled by the empty set and therefore (7) as a member of the empty set allows for the statement:

(8) 3 ≈ b (proof), in step (1). Which then allows us to evaluate step (6) to say:
(9) a = a, because ∀A: A ∪ ∅ = A.

Thus,

(10) 'b', as the additive identity, is approximately equal to any and all ℂ and ℝ values.

Working from step (4) we can solve for 2:

(11) 2 = (a - a) / b or (0 - 0) / 0.

This seems to make no sense, because how can 0 / 0 = 2? The simplest way to understand this is by reformulating (11) like so:

(12) 2 = a(1 - 1) / b ⇒
(13) 2 = a / 1, because (c * y) / (d * y) ⇒ c / d

The problem with this though is 'a' was free to equal anything in (1), but here in (13) 'a' becomes restricted exclusively to 2. A more robust way to understand how (a - a) / b can equal 2 is through the following evaluation:

(14) b = (a - a) / 2, (as seen in (4))
(15) 2 = (a - a) / b

Substitute 2 for b and b for 2. This gives:

(16)

If you notice what this shows is 0/0 ... 0/2. These things are end-points of an infinitely long line!



The formulation of the line is as follows :

(17) (a - b) / c = (a - b) - c. Note that (a - b) - c is the same formulation as seen in (2) and (a - b) / c is the same formulation as seen in (4). Thus, when (a - b) = c^2,
(18) c = c^2 - c, such that c = 0 and c = 2!

The equation that's being observed here is this:

(19)

The length of this line can be evaluated as:

(20) Lim c→0 (a - b) / c = Lim c→0 (a - b) - c ⇒
(21) ∞(a - b) = (a - b)

So this line in (16) reflects an infinite length.

(22) What this seems to show is that 2 as seen in (11) represents all positives as one quantity and all negatives as another. Since the additive identity can be shown to be similar to all reals by steps (6) through (10), it's not too difficult to see it's implied that (a - a) / b, as seen in (11), or simplified 0 / 0, causes disambiguation allowing for the properties expressed symbolically as (+a -a) to be qualitatively-quantitated (+a as 1 and -a as 1 = 2) rather than quantitatively-quantitated away (+a -a ⇒ 0).

What do I mean by quantitated versus qualitated? In a technical sense I mean A = A allows for quantization and A ≠ A allows for differentiation between quantitative & qualitative terms. This might sound complex, but really it's just a way to distinguish between two elements that otherwise would appear to be identical when in fact they're not.

For instance in step (15) we see (a - a) / b which simplified represents 0 / 0. The difficulty in understanding this is that we're dealing with two different types of zeros. Sounds weird I know but consider +0 = -0 ⇒ 0 isn't nothing it's actually the culmination of both the positive and the negative (i.e. 3 + 0 = 3 - 0 ⇒ 3 = 3 because this 0 has inside it the notion of both positive and negative allowing for cancellation). If you have a hard time understanding this remember: a + b = a - b ⇒ 2b = (a - a) ⇒ 2 = (a - a) / b; where b = 0! So we can see dividing (+a - a = 0) by a similar 0 (the additive identity, meaning +0 = -0) gives us the + & - components (or 2).

Thus,

0 (as the empty set) ≠ 0 (as the summation of + & -)

Or put another way 0 as representing abstract nothing, the empty set, is different from actual zero (+ & - summed). The way I think of + & - summed is by imagining a noble gas like Helium that has 2 electrons in its outer valence level making it stable.

To better grasp this it's easier to understand all of these ideas of nothingness and somethingness when viewed as a continuum. For instance ask a schooled philosopher, "What is the opposite of love?" 9 times out of 10 the answer will be apathy. Ask an average person off the street and you'll get, "Hate." Who's right?

Apathy is the absence of love or hate. Love is a passion (i.e. 1), and can only be countered by a passion from the opposite end of the spectrum, that is hate (i.e. -1). Apathy is that point in the middle (or 0 as representing the summation). Another possibility that's commonly ignored is the idea of not even having a feeling towards the situation because none has been created yet. This is clearly different from apathy, but also represents 0 (as abstract nothingness).

For a more technical treatment of this idea and how it works, see here.

Now if you scroll back up and re-read (22) you'll see that what I'm saying here is that splitting any zero that isn't the empty-set (∅) or a type-of ∞ will result in two parts.

This has important ramifications even in the physical world. Consider energy and matter are interchangeable, but it takes a huge amount of energy to create matter. Even ignoring that hurdle this is still difficult because ...

... in a technical sense, you cannot just create matter out of energy: there are various 'conservation laws' of electric charges, the number of leptons (electron-like particles) etc., which means that you can only create matter / anti-matter pairs out of energy. Anti-matter, however, has the unfortunate tendency to combine with matter and turn itself back into energy. Even though physicists have managed to safely trap a small amount of anti-matter using magnetic fields, this is not easy to do. (source)

What this is showing is that even the physical universe obeys this rule of going from 0 to 2, because when we convert energy to matter we get two parts as - & +.

This seems to suggest that eventually these points must curve back in on themselves (as seen in first animation) towards 0. And what'a ya know this is exactly what happens when the 2nd law of thermodynamics runs its full course. Viewed another way it hints we can cross the infinity of points on this straight line by curving space as seen in (19).

When you start to think this way what you realize is that numbers are recursive descriptions of other elements. Put another way -1 is 1. They're on the same continuum. IE/ Hate (-1) is love (1) perverted and love is the insanity of hate without the violence.

Likewise no number can be defined without 1. For instance if you have all Real numbers available to you, but 1 is removed from the domain then 2 * 3 ≠ 6 because 6 ≠ 6 since 6 / 6 ≠ 1. Meaning 6 is not a component of itself, because 1 is undefined. So unless 1 holds no number holds.

This suggests for any element to exist all other things must exist simultaneously. Thus for a = a there must be elements that simultaneously do & don't equal themselves (i.e. 0 and infinity – Complex ∞ ≠ Directed ∞ ).

Meaning that 0 is both a bijective function, where all reals & complex numbers represent a set equinumerous to the values found inside 0 as qualitative terms (i.e. think of 0.5 as a component of 0 but at the same time as a mapping to 5); and in the second interpretation the values as inside 0 actually represent several states. Such that they can either be 0, as the empty set, *or* any real or complex number. In this way 0 can be seen as surjective meaning that it can literally transmute anything in to anything else through the empty set and infinity.

Summed up this represents the very heart of the Law of One that all things are an integral part of the whole; where all things are unique, but fundamentally representations of the same thing, i.e. see (10).

[Questioner]

I'm not sure if many people here are familiar with Euler's Identity...

I think you can safely assume a broad range of mathematical understanding on this forum, everything from people who struggle with the arithmetic tasks of balancing a checkbook, and all the way up to people who don't dream in calculus because that would be far too simple for their minds!

Therefore your explanations using a combination of formulas, illustrations, storytelling and philosophy is likely to have "something for everyone." And I'm glad you take this approach.

Do you have an interest in learning how to be a deliberate, conscious channel? I see many times that the entities regret that they are not able to provide more detailed science and math answers. But they are simply not able to express concepts that have no parallel in the human's mind. With your perspective, I have to wonder if the entities might welcome your deliberately making yourself available for them to go deeper into such subjects than they can with many others.

Also, do you have any expertise in computer programming? Have you seen carrie's threads about her Law of One video game concept?

[MistaG]

Therefore your explanations using a combination of formulas, illustrations, storytelling and philosophy is likely to have "something for everyone." And I'm glad you take this approach.

I'm glad it makes some sense! I was a little worried the jargon might make it a bit unapproachable =). As I mentioned I've shown it to a few buddies who have math chops, but they have a hard time grasping the idea of A ≠ A being as fundamental as the reflexive axiom (A = A). So this was a bit of an attempt to rework the explanation using analogies and real-world examples to better communicate the concept.

Since I've found it somewhat difficult to get the core ideas across it's been a bit of a challenge to get to the point where friends in academia understand that if step (16) is correct (which it has to be if algebra holds) that we're then seeing a 0-dimensional point exhibiting characteristics of a 1-dimensional object with infinite length. Which seems to show that all things are basically geometric cross-sections of higher dimensional volumes.

Meaning any 0-dim point is a cross-section of a 1-dim line. That 1-dim line is a slice of a 2-dim plane, and so on. This exhibits a sort of holding of hands between mathematical objects where they naturally grow as extensions of their connection with previous and future objects. Implying that 0, as the empty set, connects with infinity.

This is a significantly different way of thinking of math. To give an example, usually people think of multiplication and division such that 1 is a special property of the function rather than the other way around where the number fundamentally embodies the operation. Either viewpoint here is a bit naive because both statements are correct. To understand this set the domain and range such that ℝ-{1}, then it's possible to see that 2 * 3 ≠ 6 because 6 ≠ 6 since 6 / 6 ≠ 1. Meaning 6 isn't a part of itself which is an obvious paradox. So 1 must hold or no number holds for multiplication and/or division.

Looking at math as a two-way street where numbers are many-to-one functions, it's possible to see numbers themselves fundamentally have geometric characteristics.

Do you have an interest in learning how to be a deliberate, conscious channel? I see many times that the entities regret that they are not able to provide more detailed science and math answers. But they are simply not able to express concepts that have no parallel in the human's mind. With your perspective, I have to wonder if the entities might welcome your deliberately making yourself available for them to go deeper into such subjects than they can with many others.

Sounds interesting, but I have to admit what happened back in August scared the living hell out of me. Basically when I realized that "the lack of something causes it's pursuit" I had the bright idea that if you can cancel a harmonic in your head (i.e. emulating the empty-set) that it might have the effect of touching infinity. This made sense at the time because as Dan Sherman noted in his book, Above Black, part of his training for PPD involved trying to collapse a visual / audio-wave form in his mind to effect the external visual mechanism and engage in unconventional communications.

So I gave it a go not expecting much to happen and things got weird. Bearing that in mind I'd be curious how something like channeling might work, but I'd really want to understand the pros and cons of what channels experience as side-effects opening themselves to these external stimuli.

Also, do you have any expertise in computer programming? Have you seen carrie's threads about her Law of One video game concept?

Yep, I've been in the game biz for a number of years now. I haven't read carrie's thread yet, but I'll take a peek. Sadly not many studios are receptive to outside ideas. Especially if they're not in-line with what market research has identified as being sufficiently lucrative. Which is yet just another reason why the game industry is stagnating.

[Richard]

Honestly, I find myself getting less and less interested in the discussion of the philosophy of the Law of One and more interested in the application of those tenets to my life. I can’t say what singular bit of info convinced me…I can’t say I’m totally convinced of all of it. But like Qu’o asks…I take what resonates with me and attempt to apply it and let the rest go.

Seeing the Creator in all things…even myself (that’s a hard one). Living in the now…another hard one. Dealing with the day to day catalyst of life keeping in mind an attitude of Service to Others. I guess that ones pretty hard too, lol. Life is tough…and tougher, I think…as one awakes and realizes that there is a choice. It was all much easier as I slumbered through life without a care.

Not that I’d go back though..not even close.

Richard

[Lavazza]

Hey Dustin,

So I finally sat down with a printed copy of this thread last night and examined it for about an hour. I think I understand the theory more now, but I wanted to ask you some general questions about your initial diagrams so that I can be sure we are on the same page:

- You have illustrated your theory with geometrical charts. I presume these are all math based? I will not attempt to offer you a hard critique in that area as I simply am not well versed in math. But I wanted to put out there, are you sure these geometries are the correct ones to use? I.e. maybe linear lines better serve instead of circles, etc? Not saying that is correct, but offering you the idea.

- When looking at the circle or wheel in Fig 1. I am trying to understand where the 'start' or 'entry point' is for creation. I believe this is at point B? Also the same point acts as the 'finish line' so to speak?

- The Y axis which is representative of time, correct? 14 billion years referring to the approximate age of the universe? How then does this work once humanity passes point D, where according to the diagram we would be moving backwards in time? Is this in reference to the peak expansion of the universe, then moving backwards in to a big crunch perhaps? (if so we'll need to look at that with some scrutiny!)

- On the topic of time, you note that each quarter are not equal lengths of time, following instead the golden ratio and resulting spiral. How can you be sure this is correct to apply? Also can you then break down the time span for each quarter?

- Can you please further illuminate the concepts of Exigency, Good, and Value. Particularly as it relates to having a negative value for any of them. (I do not understand how "-1 Good" works, etc. If comparing to the LOO information, I would have guessed at point D we should have +1 Good?

- I am mentally trying to see how this chart (Fig 1.) moves along the Z axis and what that means. You have shown the chart moving in a counter clockwise direction and X & Y, adding the Z will move it in a corkscrew direction / shape as you have shown on the second page. Is there also a discreet start / end point that is not illustrated for the Z axis movement? Is it creating a circle (like a coiled bit of pasta top connected to bottom), or maybe itself wrapping in to a larger coil? (E.g. DNA helix type shape) Or is it forming some other geometric pattern such as a hexagon, etc, or just moving in a straight line?

- Can you please re-explain Fig. 3? You here are proposing possible alternate meanings for Fig. 1, yes? But they also work together in a gear like fashion?

- Fig. 2 implies that all of the Fig. 3 potentials may well exist, is this correct? And that as the wheel of Fig. 1 spins / evolves we move through these different cycles of meaning / evolution?

- So each cycle lasts three quarters. Do the quarters themselves have any meaning separate from the type of cycle that is involved? What I mean is, are there any specific characteristics attributed to each quarter that do not change? You have listed Aesthetic (Summer), Simplicity (Fall), Competition (Winter) and Plenty (Spring). Are these titles static, or are they relative to the cycle, as shown in Fig. 3? Also, how did you come to title each quarter thus shown, and why?

- According to the duration of each cycle of evolution (3 quarters), following multiple cycles means that the start and end points for each cycle will themselves rotate. If we imagine the chart moving along the Z axis, leaving a dot in space where each cycle starts / ends, the result of this would be another corkscrew trail- just an observation.

A long list of questions, although I know you are probably happy to have some queries to chew on. Have you considered, once of if the theory can be tempered, tested and made fully solid, publishing a book on the topic? Also, I still plan to compare this idea to the Law of One idea, once I feel I have a good understanding (still not there..!)

- Ok, one last question. How universal is this theory? Can it be applied to any other topics aside from large scale consciousness evolution? How about finances, sports, physics, earthquake prediction, animal / human behavior, artistic aesthetics, or any number of other things? I realize these are all subsets of what you have already charted (i.e. the big picture) but, if it is indeed something like a universal truth or universal geometry (like the Fibonacci spiral in nature) maybe it will be seen to be useful in everything(?). Much like the spiral shows itself in the snail's shell as well as the spiral galaxy, one being within the other. I also realize the possibility that some of my suggestions just might not make any sense, but being in a unique position of not having full understanding, you have the benefit of my suggestion of any number of wacky things, some of which may yield fruit.

Fun stuff.