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.
Right, animals choose within instinct, but humans choose in relation to the truth. We are made in God's image and should be aware of moral choices.
At the same time, the story still shows them responding to a command in a relationship. So even if they didn’t have reflective knowledge, they still had a real orientation: trusting or not trusting the one speaking to them. The tree showed their heart without a "right or wrong".
Does moral responsibility require experienced contrast… or is relational trust enough? I think that is our tension here.
I think to understand a monistic lens, you have to see it through relationships. The tree behaves as a relational boundary. Think of it like giving someone a gift and asking them not to open it until a certain time. The gift itself isn’t harmful or creates any real contrast... its actually a good thing. Opening the gift beforehand isn't an "evil" act in itself either... it is not malicious, it can be entirely innocent. What matters is how the will engages with the relational boundary... whether it honors the trust inherent in the relationship.
When Adam and Eve ate the fruit, it didn’t suddenly make them capable of moral choice... they already had that capacity. What changed was that misalignment became visible: they felt shame, fear, and self-consciousness. The first time you realize you’ve broken someone’s trust or hurt someone, you suddenly feel the weight of it and the consequences thereof. The fruit revealed the orientation of their hearts in relation to God, rather than teaching them right or wrong in the abstract.
The tree does not provide the conditions for freedom, it just reveals how that freedom is already being exercised and how Adam and Eve see themselves in relation to God.
Yes, it turns out the gift I mentioned earlier is a mirror. They were always meant to engage with it at least. The mirror doesn’t test them from the outside; it reflects the natural exercise of their will and shows how their hearts relate to the source. Adam and Eve could approach the tree and see themselves in full alignment with God, or they could see misalignment... the tree simply makes what is already there visible. Their freedom, trust, and relational depth exist independently; the tree just allows them to experience those qualities in a concrete, reflective way.
Well, you can absolutely acknowledge relational dualities in experience without them being ontological forces. The duality is derivative. Perhaps duality isn't being defined correctly here, perhaps duality is not Truth vs. Untruth as I think the monistic lens can even agree to that... alignment vs unalignment say... I think duality might more imply that there is Truth and Anti-Truth. For instance... the destructive interference in the double slit experiment isn’t a separate “anti-light”; it’s just the pattern created by the interaction of the whole system, not a self-standing opposing entity. Even with cold vs. hot we can experience as humans... but on the cosmic scale coldness is a relative absence of energy, it is not anti-energy say.
Spiritually, the tree doesn’t generate a negative path, and Adam and Eve aren’t actively choosing to be against God. The contrast isn’t an actual cosmic “evil” or anti-God force... It’s relational and perceptual.
Right... so, “moral awareness” without God is really amoral awareness. The monistic view grounds morality entirely in relationship to the Source, so moral awareness only becomes meaningful within that relationship. Adam and Eve, created in God’s image (Imago Dei), already had this awareness simply by being in relationship with Him. When that relationship is broken or misaligned, morality doesn’t disappear, but it becomes confused... is this what you mean or did I not understand?
Some great answers and lines of thought here! - will edit back in a response when I get a minute later tonight
Edit) sorry, I’ve had my entire family over for the last week, nary a minute to spare - looking to get back to this soon m80
Checking in to see if you have further thoughts
Y’know Ive spent a while trying to think of where to go with the conversation but keep coming up dry… i keep coming back to “we’re in agreement but looking at things from different angles”…mostly at least… here, let’s try this:
Does real Evil (aka an “evil” entity, satan, existing in the role of tempter) exist anywhere? Further, if “alignment with God’s Will” maps to the “Good” polarity, surely there exists an opposite polarity, beyond simply “out of alignment”, which I would say describes better the people in the lukewarm middle of the poles, would you agree? Even without an entity representing that polarity, people could still imagine it and “aim for it” (see Epstain et Al)
I would say that there does seem to exist an entity playing that role, the so called “god of this world”, but it sounds like (correct me if I’m wrong) you come down more on the “it’s a metaphor” interpretation, or is that overly simplified by me?
Do you agree with the principle of “as above, so below”? Further/relatedly, can you name anything in existence that is “mono polar”? Because the fact that everything in the universe seems to operate with(in) polarity says to me that the same principle applies not just across scales but also across domains (i.e. in the spiritual domain of existence as well). You seem to be suggesting the “mono-polarity” of the spiritual realm (again please correct me if I’m wrong). If that’s correct, I’d ask why you think that? Taking account of the fact that until all the stuff that happens at the end of time/Revelations (e.g. satan being vanquished) actually occurs, we are operating in a dualistic environment.. and I just say that because (imagining you say something like) “it becomes totally mono-polar eventually, it just seems dualistic in our temporally limited sphere”, I would just say “yeah that’s what HH/LoO says too”, y’know, back to the “different words for the same thing” notion.
Honestly I just didn’t see a clearly productive direction to take things, despite knowing there must be atleast one if not multiple. If you’ve got any ideas beyond mine of polarity I’d love to hear em
I understand. It seems that when people approach things seriously and in good faith, they can often reach agreement, since different frameworks can serve as conduits to truth. Perhaps we’ve arrived at a point where the remaining differences feel like nitpicking... but it may be precisely in those finer details that the most meaningful distinctions lie.
I will treat it as true in its entirety for the sake of conversation and exploring an idea...
So, to clarify my position and to go further with it... almost nothing we can meaningfully describe is purely monopolar. Even “the One” in philosophy is often described negatively (what it is not), which already implies relation. Pure monad, as we experience reality, is practically unnameable. And this is where I would like to better define the monad in the proceeding way:
Perhaps it is more accurate to say that reality may be fundamentally triadic rather than dyadic...
In logic there is a thesis, and antithesis and synthesis
In Time there is past, present, and future
In Language there is speaker, word, and listener
In Love there is the lover, the beloved, and love itself.
Free will is agent, action, goal
Baryons - Proton/Neutrons are made of 3 quarks
I believe there is relational unity in reality and that the "monad" of sorts is a communion.
When the communion is broken then the world can look like polarity because there exists the separation of one from the two say.
But before I go too far... its not that everything is literally structured as 3 its just that relationship itself often requires more than mere opposition. Generally, it is through a third... through relation, mediation, or participation... that I believe meaning, unity, and coherence emerge.
Further developing the triad monist thought... I think Evil, as a polarity, appears when communion is broken.
In a triadic reality (God, Person, other) there is a correct relationship among the three and unity in distinction. When the communion breaks or misalignment happens, the relational center collapses, the will detaches from the source, the other becomes objectified or opposed. The polarity emerges.
Once the communion is broken, the will stabilizes the distortion, the patterns of opposition repeat, and systems form around that distortion.
I think it is why we have this inherent feeling the world is not right, there is something amiss. There is a rupture in our reality.
The goal is not choosing the right side... but to restore a communion and repair the relationships.
Thanks for continuing the conversation! I hope I dont make it feel like an obligation to keep going, I just really appreciate your passion and your seriousness about these things and I feel I match you there and think that something interesting and revealing may develop and somewhat already has.