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.
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.
I often have felt a synchronicity with your replies, which is a rare feeling I get with others which I interpret as “pay attention!” lol. Have you ever read about that idea? Which is all to say, i too am grateful for your passion, and the perspectives you share, not to tear down in anyway but to reframe. Im really glad that it seems what im trying to say is coming across, which I can only tell by the clarity of your responses thereupon. Cheers on those notes
And regarding the fundament of existence as the triad, that’s seriously compelling and I struggle to push back, all I can come up with are things that support the interpretation. For example what comes to mind as I read
Is that the framing makes sense. Only for “satanists” is their “evil” aligned with “satan”… for the adulterer, their evil is aligned with “Lust”, for the userer, “Mammon”, and so on. So “other” is more appropriate, as each individual has a unique “tempter”/set of temptations that would lead them, in their unique life, astray from “the Way”. I suppose the richness of your proposed description could be dissolved into the narrative of “the hierarchy of Hell”, if I wanted to force it into a dualistic view, but I see no need for that heh
Further, I think of one verse which has stuck with me strongly, which I think supports your view, or atleast could be thought of in that way:
Chapter 42 btw… I wonder what Douglas Adams meant by that…
Just to kind of tie back into the OP, what would you say HH/LoO gets most wrong? Because honestly I see even this Triadic perspective fitting in to their story, forgive me lol but I do (at first glance anyway, im sure it will get a couple more atleast), but I find the overall story just makes so much sense that it’s easy to “fit things in” so-to-speak. Whether it’s a created dualism that eventually returns to its uncreated Monism, or a creation that evolves from one to two to three to many and back again. I dunno. It’s like you say in your first paragraph about conduits to truth.
:)
Apologies for late reply. I've been running it through my head as HH/LoO does seem to fit many of the Abrahamic and Eastern religions well if we are a bit flexible with them... so I'm trying to focus on where these bends occur... but I come specifically from the triad monist perspective.
Lol nice connecting the dots there, now that is synchronicity lol... from my perspective it is the irony of a truth that is isolated... it needs a relational context in order to understand it. The Pharisees had correct answers, they knew the law, they could recite the truth... but they just had 42. Any answer that stands alone, detached from relationship, becomes ‘42’.
Absolutely, coming from the symbolic realist mindset, Jung understood that reality is relationships and patterns. and a True synchronicity will draw us into a communion of sorts... and hopefully we can evade over-interpretation.
So, what it get right is that reality is not purely material, there is a fundamental unity, consciousness participates in reality...
But treating HH/LoO very seriously, I see the framework as: (pre-relational) unity -> polarity -> evolution -> back to unity... while I would say unity is already relational. I would set it up as a triune communion -> a broken relation -> distorted polarity -> restoration. And I can go further into that but it's just a diagram to show my thought process:
I think "the One" is not just One... it is One-in-relation that it might understand itself. It is not a solitary unity... but a communion united. If the One is not inherently relational then love, say, is optional or an emergent property... but I see love is structural to reality itself. It is not a stage or an evolution or something it needs to learn, but a ground.
I think that HH/LoO focuses more on evolution than it does restoration. A focus on a progressive ascent through the densities and learning through a polarity with eventual integration... but it isnt our lack of development say, it is a ruptured communion. How do we fix a relationship that is broken? We can't do it ourselves as that would go against the reality of relationship. We need a redeemer, a metaxu.
HH/LoO tends to focus on awareness, realization, understanding... and to refer back to Douglas Adams... this is a 42 answer for me. Because it is focused on seeing the truth but the Triad demands that you participate in it with the right relationship.
I've probably said relationship over a dozen times here so I'm sorry if it seems repetitive... I guess if I distill it down, what is most wrong is it treats division as necessary, instead of communion as primary.
Perhaps if the HH/LoO can be better explained to me to fit a relationship idea, I can see more value in what it is trying to say.
Heh, a wizard is never late my friend
And again, hah, you say “nice job connecting the dots”, frankly that was all you! I was just trying to make a lame joke, but your insight connecting “the answer to life, the universe, and everything” to relationship is, I think, spot on and highly insightful. (Reminds me a bit of the final line in asimov’s ”The Last Question”.) The “answer” itself is dependent on all the surrounding context, and until all of that surrounding context is comprehended, the “answer”, in a vacuum, is almost meaningless, or atleast sterile. Or as you put so well:
He and Nietzsche, I feel, don’t get the credit they deserve for their contributions to our mindscapes. Jung’s mysticism and Nietzsche’s pragmatism should be at the foundation of modern religious thought, yet they’ve been seemingly just swept under the rug. Forgive the tangent lol.
So would you say that a large part of your issue with this framework is that it kind of presents “two Gods”, one being “pre-relational” (i.e. “before” the One Infinite Creator decided to “know itself”, thus kicking off “the universe”), and the One Infinite Creator at “the end of time”, where the myriad have coalesced back into (relational, this time) unity?
Forgive the copy and paste but I think this does well enough to convey some points:
So I would just point out a couple things: the unity “before” existence isn’t one that lacks relation, but one that is subsumed by relation. The relations are so solidly a part of the whole that the “distortion” of individuality is dissolved. That’s why the One Infinite Creator kicks things off by forgetting - such that it may remember those relationships anew. That might sound “pointless”, but I mean, what else makes sense for an omnipotent, omniscient being that ostensibly exists outside of time to do? The entire point of existence (in this framework) is relationship!
I think you put this well, but ultimately I think this is simply an issue of perspective (and i definitely see where you’re coming from). I understand why someone might hear “evolution through densities” and think something like “superheroes getting new superpowers”, but I think, actually, the story that is attempting to be conveyed through HH/LoO is actually fundamentally one of relation, and not some sterile “evolution of power” or something like that. I say that because, what does the whole story boil down to? Service-to-Others. Relationship is the catalyst for everything in existence. The One forgot, such that we may remember. It’s like the ultimate tale of sacrifice. A PERFECT stasis is broken, such that we may remember the Way to perfection.
Which is all to say, to me, relationship is the very central beating heart of this perspective, based on my understanding
Idk…I hope some of what I’m trying to say comes through, let me know if any parts seem unjustified