4dphilosophyproject (at) gmail.com
If you have a serious interest in developing the IUP and producing a philosophical treatise and curriculum for mainstream university study send an email. Elaborate on what your goals are and what specific interests you may have related to this project.
Finish this statement 'The LOO is the law that states....and from this it implies...'
Just as Nehru and Peret reevaluated Larson's Fundamental Postulates of the Reciprocal System or RS, a reevaluation is here attempted of Ra statements that come closest to being postulates.
From their reevaluation RS2 was created using more accurate and complete postulates to provide a better foundation for deriving corollaries and theories of physics, biology, and to some extent, mathematics and metaphysics. It became a more consistent and understandable system that could determine and explain in better detail principles and phenomena. It is still a work in progress but is an advancement of RS.
If you get the postulates or axioms right the rest of the system should harmoniously fall into place and new research and development can take place.
My purpose here is to reevaluate the postulates or general principles of the LOO and develop more accurate ones. It takes using critical thinking and questioning at a level that may seem harsh but that's what a thorough reevaluation calls for.
The goals are for:
1. a clear and complete description of the monism properties of the LOO.
2. a description of how these monism properties or principles can be used to derive other principles and forms of existence
3. creating a comprehensive philosophical treatise and curriculum worthy of university study and making L/L Research relevant to mainstream academia
There are some serious researchers and educators out there so critical and constructive questions and comments are welcome.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RM session 1 postulate:
You are every thing, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation. You are unity. You are infinity. You are love/light, light/love. You are. This is the Law of One.
So I am every thing. Therefore I am all things. I am a single entity that is all things. I, as a one, am all things. So therefore, one thing is all things, and by induction, One is All. Unity is Infinity. This is the LOO.
The I am All nature of LOO is outward and projective. I identify with you -- I project myself into you -- I am you. An unbalanced and extreme LOO can result in borderline personality disorder. Standing on the border in no man's land with no personal identity leads to projection on everyone else. Also bi-polar disorder, martyr complex, co-dependence, ungrounded flightiness.
The converse of the LOO is LoA
Every thing is you, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation. Unity is you. Infinity is you. Love/light, light/love are you. All are you. This is the Law of All.
So every thing is I. Therefore all things is I. All things is I as a single entity. All things is I, as a one. So therefore, all things is one thing, and by induction, All is One. Infinity is Unity. This is the LoA.
The All is I nature of LoA is inward and injective. You identify with me -- you inject yourself into me -- you are me. An unbalanced and extreme LoA can result in narcissism and grandiose egotistic delusions, power trips, sadism, manic depression and bi-polar disorder.
There are significant semantic problems of the RM session 1 postulate:
The muddled mixing of relative and absolute terms is problematic -- beings, emotions, events, situations are relative concrete terms and should not be mixed with unity and infinity which are, as Ra uses them in the statement, absolute abstract terms. Love/light and light/love are relative and a combination of concrete/abstract so are mixable with the relative concrete.
Infinity denotes All and Unity denotes One and Infinity/Unity denote each other. They are abstract absolutes that precede and encompass the relative concrete/abstract. Therefore, I would not include infinity and unity in the initial statement. Pull them out and use them like I did in the inference chain where All is One infers Infinity is Unity.
RM session 4 postulate:
The Law of One, though beyond the limitation of name may be approximated by stating that all things are one, that there is no polarity, no right or wrong, no disharmony, but only identity. All is one, and that one is love/light, light/love, the infinite Creator.
The LOO may be approximated or estimated as the statement all things are one -- this is an admission of vagueness because of translation problems. All things are one is the basic statement of a vague arbitrary monism. What specific kind of monism is LOO?
There is no polarity, no right or wrong, no disharmony --- all negation-based -- similar to non-duality and an absolute indifference. So are we talking about the Law of Non-Duality or Law of Indifference instead of LOO? Again vagueness from translation problems.
There is only identity -- so there's only sameness or equality.
Identity is expressed in the Styx song, Grand Illusion -- Just remember that...it's a grand illusion... and deep inside we're all the same. We're all the same as what kind of monism?
A = A is self-identity. Infinity = Unity and Unity = Infinity are symmetric identities that necessitate the dialectical monism of the Infinity/Unity Principle or IUP.
Equality (=) is a binary relation. You must have two things to have an equality. 4/2=2 and 5x3=15, etc. Duality is needed for equality to be expressed.
All is one, and that one is love/light, light/love, the infinite Creator.
In the RM session 1 postulate above -- LoO asserts that you are all, so therefore One is All -- it's clear and explicit. Now it's claimed that All is One and that one is a duality of love/light and light/love. What happened to declaring no polarity or duality and only identity? Conflicting statements between sessions 1 & 4 and within session 4 itself.
Muddled mixing and conflicting statements clearly show session 1 & 4 as ineffective postulates.
We at least know that Ra asserts a type of monotheism with a single infinite Creator but unclear about other characteristics and properties. The IUP asserts panentheism which fits perfectly with its dialectical monism.
Other than RM session 4, Ra makes only one other reference to 'all is one' in the whole 4 book series which is quite surprising -- and in RM session 66 it is not explicitly referring to the LOO but to the Creator knowing Itself, which is consistent with LoA integration and self-awareness.
All is One does not refer to the LOO as everyone assumes. (I used to assume this too - its a kind of mantra -- but its a LoA mantra or a monism mantra.)
The order of reference is significant and is clear in the following.
What is All? All is One -- All is the primary subject and One is the secondary predicate. LoA
What is One? One is All -- One is the primary subject and All is the secondary predicate. LoO
RM session 66
Questioner: Is this desire and will that operates through to the time/space section a function only of the entity who is healed or is it also the function of the healer, the crystallized healer?
Ra: I am Ra. May we take this opportunity to say that this is the activity of the Creator. To specifically answer your query the crystallized healer has no will. It offers an opportunity without attachment to the outcome, for it is aware that all is one and that the Creator is knowing Itself.
If you have a serious interest in developing the IUP and producing a philosophical treatise and curriculum for mainstream university study send an email. Elaborate on what your goals are and what specific interests you may have related to this project.
Finish this statement 'The LOO is the law that states....and from this it implies...'
Just as Nehru and Peret reevaluated Larson's Fundamental Postulates of the Reciprocal System or RS, a reevaluation is here attempted of Ra statements that come closest to being postulates.
From their reevaluation RS2 was created using more accurate and complete postulates to provide a better foundation for deriving corollaries and theories of physics, biology, and to some extent, mathematics and metaphysics. It became a more consistent and understandable system that could determine and explain in better detail principles and phenomena. It is still a work in progress but is an advancement of RS.
If you get the postulates or axioms right the rest of the system should harmoniously fall into place and new research and development can take place.
My purpose here is to reevaluate the postulates or general principles of the LOO and develop more accurate ones. It takes using critical thinking and questioning at a level that may seem harsh but that's what a thorough reevaluation calls for.
The goals are for:
1. a clear and complete description of the monism properties of the LOO.
2. a description of how these monism properties or principles can be used to derive other principles and forms of existence
3. creating a comprehensive philosophical treatise and curriculum worthy of university study and making L/L Research relevant to mainstream academia
There are some serious researchers and educators out there so critical and constructive questions and comments are welcome.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RM session 1 postulate:
You are every thing, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation. You are unity. You are infinity. You are love/light, light/love. You are. This is the Law of One.
So I am every thing. Therefore I am all things. I am a single entity that is all things. I, as a one, am all things. So therefore, one thing is all things, and by induction, One is All. Unity is Infinity. This is the LOO.
The I am All nature of LOO is outward and projective. I identify with you -- I project myself into you -- I am you. An unbalanced and extreme LOO can result in borderline personality disorder. Standing on the border in no man's land with no personal identity leads to projection on everyone else. Also bi-polar disorder, martyr complex, co-dependence, ungrounded flightiness.
The converse of the LOO is LoA
Every thing is you, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation. Unity is you. Infinity is you. Love/light, light/love are you. All are you. This is the Law of All.
So every thing is I. Therefore all things is I. All things is I as a single entity. All things is I, as a one. So therefore, all things is one thing, and by induction, All is One. Infinity is Unity. This is the LoA.
The All is I nature of LoA is inward and injective. You identify with me -- you inject yourself into me -- you are me. An unbalanced and extreme LoA can result in narcissism and grandiose egotistic delusions, power trips, sadism, manic depression and bi-polar disorder.
There are significant semantic problems of the RM session 1 postulate:
The muddled mixing of relative and absolute terms is problematic -- beings, emotions, events, situations are relative concrete terms and should not be mixed with unity and infinity which are, as Ra uses them in the statement, absolute abstract terms. Love/light and light/love are relative and a combination of concrete/abstract so are mixable with the relative concrete.
Infinity denotes All and Unity denotes One and Infinity/Unity denote each other. They are abstract absolutes that precede and encompass the relative concrete/abstract. Therefore, I would not include infinity and unity in the initial statement. Pull them out and use them like I did in the inference chain where All is One infers Infinity is Unity.
RM session 4 postulate:
The Law of One, though beyond the limitation of name may be approximated by stating that all things are one, that there is no polarity, no right or wrong, no disharmony, but only identity. All is one, and that one is love/light, light/love, the infinite Creator.
The LOO may be approximated or estimated as the statement all things are one -- this is an admission of vagueness because of translation problems. All things are one is the basic statement of a vague arbitrary monism. What specific kind of monism is LOO?
There is no polarity, no right or wrong, no disharmony --- all negation-based -- similar to non-duality and an absolute indifference. So are we talking about the Law of Non-Duality or Law of Indifference instead of LOO? Again vagueness from translation problems.
There is only identity -- so there's only sameness or equality.
Identity is expressed in the Styx song, Grand Illusion -- Just remember that...it's a grand illusion... and deep inside we're all the same. We're all the same as what kind of monism?
A = A is self-identity. Infinity = Unity and Unity = Infinity are symmetric identities that necessitate the dialectical monism of the Infinity/Unity Principle or IUP.
Equality (=) is a binary relation. You must have two things to have an equality. 4/2=2 and 5x3=15, etc. Duality is needed for equality to be expressed.
All is one, and that one is love/light, light/love, the infinite Creator.
In the RM session 1 postulate above -- LoO asserts that you are all, so therefore One is All -- it's clear and explicit. Now it's claimed that All is One and that one is a duality of love/light and light/love. What happened to declaring no polarity or duality and only identity? Conflicting statements between sessions 1 & 4 and within session 4 itself.
Muddled mixing and conflicting statements clearly show session 1 & 4 as ineffective postulates.
We at least know that Ra asserts a type of monotheism with a single infinite Creator but unclear about other characteristics and properties. The IUP asserts panentheism which fits perfectly with its dialectical monism.
Other than RM session 4, Ra makes only one other reference to 'all is one' in the whole 4 book series which is quite surprising -- and in RM session 66 it is not explicitly referring to the LOO but to the Creator knowing Itself, which is consistent with LoA integration and self-awareness.
All is One does not refer to the LOO as everyone assumes. (I used to assume this too - its a kind of mantra -- but its a LoA mantra or a monism mantra.)
The order of reference is significant and is clear in the following.
What is All? All is One -- All is the primary subject and One is the secondary predicate. LoA
What is One? One is All -- One is the primary subject and All is the secondary predicate. LoO
RM session 66
Questioner: Is this desire and will that operates through to the time/space section a function only of the entity who is healed or is it also the function of the healer, the crystallized healer?
Ra: I am Ra. May we take this opportunity to say that this is the activity of the Creator. To specifically answer your query the crystallized healer has no will. It offers an opportunity without attachment to the outcome, for it is aware that all is one and that the Creator is knowing Itself.