Thanks! u/Graphenium:
The worldview expressed in the Law of One/“Ra Material” and the Hidden Hand interview
https://www.wanttoknow.info/secret_societies/hidden_hand_081018
The way I see things, these two sources explain existence, the state of our world, and the meaning of life far more accurately than any other. One is a “channeled” work, and the other is a long series of Questions and Answers between a conspiracy forum (RiP ATS) and a self-proclaimed world-controller. I see them as complimentary, showing a deeper reality by showing two sides of the same coin. One side being that of Service-to-Others, and the other being Service-to-Self
https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/1ASG9Vy4Tl/round-table-suggestion-thread/c
Thread will stay open for 3-4 weeks thanks to a very helpful suggestion.
My current take, and I will come back to it, is that the material contains such overt contradictions that your extra work reconciling it is better spent with less illogical material. I'm the one saying to unspoil all things and to find the valid concerns in things, but I don't see you distancing from contradiction but excusing it.
List the top three contradictions in your view, but note that if they are reconciled in the text that you apparently still haven’t finished reading, 5 years after I first linked it to you, I will be starting each sentence with “what are you, retarded?”
I'll make time for it!
Thank you reminding me via an indirect link made to a different person, as my perception of how we'd have this conversation didn't retain this view of the form. Going forward note: Telling me to search "three" didn't work because I thought I found the right one and it was too vague to answer so I didn't actually press on to find the right one.
Becoming or No Becoming? "The Law of One, though beyond the limitations of name, as you call vibratory sound complexes, 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." (4.20) "Therefore, gradually, step by step, the Creator becomes that which may know Itself, and the portions of the Creator partake less purely in the power of the original word or thought. This is for the purpose of refinement of the one original thought. The Creator does not properly create as much as It experiences Itself." (82.10) If All is Infinite Creator, that must include all time because otherwise Creator would not be Infinite. But an Infinite Creator including all time cannot "become", or have "become", because that which becomes, like that which has become, cannot include all time.
Right or No Right? "Let us illustrate by observing the relative harmony and unchanging quality of existence in one of your, as you call it, primitive tribes. The entities have the concepts of lawful and taboo, but the law is inexorable and all events occur as predestined. There is no concept of right and wrong, good or bad. It is a culture in monochrome. In this context you may see the one you call Lucifer as the true light-bringer in that the knowledge of good and evil both precipitated the mind/body/spirits of this Logos from the Edenic conditions of constant contentment but also provided the impetus to move, to work and to learn. Those Logoi whose creations have been set up without free will have not, in the feeling of those Logoi, given the Creator the quality and variety of experience of Itself as have those Logoi which have incorporated free will as paramount." (77.17) "There is no magic greater than honest distortion toward love." (55:2) "The vibration or density of love or understanding is not a term used in the same sense as the second distortion, Love; the distortion Love being the great activator and primal co-Creator of various creations using intelligent infinity; the vibration love being that density in which those who have learned to do an activity called “loving” without significant distortion, then seek the ways of light or wisdom." (27:13) But, if there is no polarity and no right (4:20), there is no true and no great, and nothing is "the true light-bringer" compared via polarity to anything else like the distortion Love being the true light-bringer, nor any magic "greater" than any other distortion.
Identity or No Identity? "The seventh density is a density of completion and the turning towards timelessness or foreverness." (41.16) "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." (16.22) If we become one with all, we would not be "in" all as a subset, nor would "we" cease to have identity as "we" because otherwise it would not be "we" doing the becoming nor would it be "all" (the Creator) being one with us.
Separately, I'll give "Ra" credit for not saying the Creator "became aware" in 13.12 as he is wrongly summarized as saying, but "discerned", which does not imply becoming; 13.12 actually says "The intelligent infinity discerned a concept. This concept was discerned due to freedom of will of awareness. This concept was finity. This was the first and primal paradox or distortion of the Law of One." However, the "becoming" is affirmed in 82.10.
No, I'm not interested in making excessive time for the entirety of a channeled theory of morality that rejects right and wrong but incentivizes the "self-serving" at a rate of 45 times the rate it incentivizes service to others (-45% versus +1%). Only enough time to be confident I haven't missed something subtle about it.
Regarding 2)
What are you, retarded?
Your issue is incomprehensible. Do you live in a “primitive tribe”? No? Then what is said is not directly applicable to you, but is instead said to illuminate your ignorance via exposure to an unimagined (by you) perspective.
Regarding 3)
Again, you seem to have trouble understanding that you, a temporally limited being, are reading a description of a temporally unlimited process. No fucking shit it’s tough to describe with words. But tell us more cope about how your story has no “contradictions” like this what-so-ever. No omnipotent omniscient being getting blindsided by events so hard that he wipes the slate clean and starts over, no being overcome with emotions, no logical mismatches between eternities and ages and New Heavens and New Earths and New Testaments and supposedly timeless beings.
You’re gunna need to walk me through what it is you think you’re saying here lmao, because I assure you, it’s incorrect as fuck.
Not semantics. You imply you wish to use "become" in the sense in which one's perception of the Creator changes because one is changing when the Creator is not (e.g. Ex. 15:2, 1 Sam. 28:16, 2 Sam. 7:24, 1 Chr. 17:22, but that far there is no passage of the emotion-based kind you describe). But the material speaks of the Creator in Itself, "the Creator becomes that which may know Itself". The ordinary scenario implied by "become" is that there is a scenario in which Creator does not know Itself and one in which it does, which contradicts it being Infinite; if we argued that the implication was instead that from someone else's temporal, changing perception, Creator that actually knows Itself fully and timelessly appears to change in Its knowledge of Itself, it's contradictory to assert the appearance as reality if the reality is otherwise. (Now obviously the "all is illusion" assumption logically means that any contradiction can be entertained, but I'm assuming that we've previously established that no contradiction is to be entertained. If you don't want to pivot to "all perception is illusion" being the contradiction, then we're stuck with an "Infinite Temporally Changeable" which cannot be One and which would be inferior to the spacetime that contains it.)
The contradiction is between affirming "no right and wrong" and affirming some things are "true" and "great". If all polarity is one then all action on a true-false or great-small spectrum is one, nothing can be called out as essentially false seeing as nothing is absolute-zero false. Humanity routinely affirms right and wrong as polar opposites because if all actions have the same ultimate effect then there is no bar to breaking down any social norm. It would be impolite to directly refer to the type of life you would face if people followed the logical consequence of the denial. In the present case, affirming no right and wrong means that Lucifer is just as true as Logos and vice versa, which means satanists (and Israelis for that matter) can go on doing whatever they please without any right for you to complain. The reference to "primitive tribe" clearly entails Edenic man, which is simultaneously treated as negatively lower-density because not acting on freewill, and yet as positively embodying the oneness principles of not having right and wrong, and of having perfect contentment. That's playing both sides. Either absence of good can be rejected as such, or no evil can be rejected.
It's contradictory to say the Creator has an identity (Creator) but becoming one with him I don't have an identity (neither his nor my own). I actually have considered temporally unlimited processes. And this is not one because each phase has a finite period; in the seventh destiny we are to become one with all having "no past or future, but existing in the all". This is not logically temporal but a change from temporal to timeless; the individual is promised a (temporal) event of past and future ceasing, and that's not temporally unlimited. The eighth destiny doesn't matter then because there's no "me" going through it but some other being "created" by the Creator and all "my" experience of that other being would not be as me but as the timeless Creator (and thus already present in the 7th density). (Your appeal to ineffability doesn't deflect the fact that a contradictory statement is logically meaningless. If you move the contradiction to "reality is indescribable", it would be another pivot like before to a deeper contradiction because no proposition can be made without describability.)
Breaking it down, please choose: (1) either unchangeable or changeable Creator, (2) either fallible or infallible human freewill, (3) either substantially identifiable or completely unidentifiable Creator. The material declines to come down on either side, unless we decide that it has and interpret it to make it do so. Since you seem to want to engage now, I'd appreciate your answering those three binaries.
Side point: I told you 51% good (+1%) versus 5% good (-45%) were sketchy numbers. By inventing those numbers, the proposed system incentivizes evil 45 times more than good, in Frankist fashion. If the fourth-density "preferred" outcomes are only engaged at those thresholds and the third-density "deprecated" outcome covers the rest, then a person who wants to escape will either seek to be as bad as possible or seek to be a little better than one is worse. However, it's much easier for people to be destructive than constructive, in the short term anyway, so the same temptation comes up as in any religion, but it's inverted as it is in satanism. That's not a contradiction per se, it's just a tell.
You also include a wondrous goalpost move, from up-down determination of contradictions in OP to comparative weighing of alleged contradictions in different systems. So let's try it. (a) Creator that appears blindsided because of a 1-year event with a death toll of millions, despite planning for survival and flourishing; versus Creator (without characterizing how he appears) that needs 7 billion years to carry out a plan for flourishing. (b) Plan that appears sketchy for perhaps 200 billion deaths that happen on one planet under natural conditions for 6,000+ years; versus plan that appears sketchy for having 7 billion years of deaths on 67 million planets (16.26) times an uncounted number of galaxies, where over 100 million years of those deaths are sentient 3rd-density creatures. (c) Plan where one cataclysm that does not extinguish most species is characterized as "wiping slate clean and starting over"; versus plan that may involve 16 similar cataclysms over 25,000 years, times such 3 periods to make 75,000 years, only for the very briefest of eight density transitions, without wondering if that counts as wiping slates clean. (d) Creator that appears overcome with emotions by expressing Itself in human terms; versus Creator who cannot express Itself to creatures at all but allows sub-sub-Logos creatures to express everything and to still constantly complain about the weakness of using our "sonic vibratory symbols" (words) to communicate (and also the weakness of using a human instrument (channeler) as if they are different from any other channelers, who happen to be described accurately in the other Creator's book thousands of years ago). (e) Single timeline from Alpha Point without any temporal end being experienced; versus cyclical timeline where eighth density is the same as the first without any advance from the previous time around (seeing as our first density has no evidence of being the eighth density of some prior experience), with the same Lethe fallacy as reincarnation but on a more cosmic background. (f) One Creator to all creatures without mediator; versus an aeonic hierarchy to sub-sub-Logos that mediates the incommunicative Creator. (g) A destiny of spirit-body harmony in the Creator's presence as his Bride "soon" (not millions of years ahead); versus an apparently contradictory destiny of loss of identity, of knowledge of good and evil, of past and future, after 100 million years of reincarnative striving to meet percentage quotas, without reference to the observed body or the perceived spirit. (h) A covenant delivered over many centuries by many authors in agreement, culminating in a demonstration of a body raised from death, which has a large (though imperfect) body of upholders that advance good in the world; versus a material delivered by one channeler without any promises or guarantees except all destinies ("good" or "bad") being one, whose most salient points are its responsive rejection of essentials of that other covenant. (i) One changeless timeless being encompassing all phases of all temporal beings; versus an apparently contradictory temporal "event" of a temporal being "becoming" timeless and yet continuing to undergo more "becoming" "afterward" in another "density" that recapitulates a prior one.
Would you like then to propose that one of those two systems is obviously more contradictory than the other? Are we agreed that we have certain power to winnow out contradictions and come to preferred versus deprecated narratives?
Regarding 1)
What are you, retarded? This is pure semantics. Obviously you view yahweh as equivalent to the One Infinite Creator, yet your book is CHOCK FULL of this supposedly timeless entity “becoming” Wroth, or Jealous, or overcome with Regret, or Grief. Im not even going to bother getting verses because such things occur literally hundreds of times across the OT.
So either your god isn’t timeless, or you’re blind to your own double standards.