[dremucha]

i have a question that maybe some of you would like to chime in on. after lengthy discussion about densities and possibilities what do you think there is to string all these things together including most of all the information we read and concepts we hold so we can uncover the ultimate underlying current. try to post information that is not really a guessing concept but more of a science even if it is immersed with philosophy if you please, unless you want to ask questions of course. i would like to hear thoughts in a bit of detail that bring in all the commonalities instead of subsections or transitions that can span across many many areas of practically anything and everything and could be seen in many situations, time lines, practices, feelings, experiences, world views, thoughts, space, unification efforts and matter itself regardless of complexity or seemingly large differences.

i will see if i find inconsistencies along the way if i have the time with others so please don't think i am attacking your posts this way we can collectively try and smooth out the "rough edges" and will be open to others pointing out holes in anything i say also during the conversation so feel free to "shoot".

you can keep it short and sweet or go into detail. please take your time on posting if you can. i think this could help us find a base line for all of these things we relate to from what was, what is and what will be and could have great potential to understand many other things because it could become a very helpful way to feel more unified with everything no matter what situation we encounter internal or external and everything inbetween.


happy hunting, spiral.

[valentinesdayyy]

nice idea, spiral!

when i read your thread starter enough to jive with your intent, i suddenly found that i was going to the following ra statement. while i know your intent is for us to discuss in our own words, this is about drawing it all together, and this quote may help set the tone; as for me, to draw all this together is purely the stuff of the law of one, and this loo exercise hints at the inevitable destination of distilling the experiences of our lives here:

10.14 questioner: for the general development of the reader of this book, could you state some of the practices or exercises to perform to produce an acceleration toward the law of one?

ra: i am ra.

exercise one. this is the most nearly centered and useable within your illusion complex. the moment contains love. that is the lesson/goal of this illusion or density. the exercise is to consciously see that love in awareness and understanding distortions. the first attempt is the cornerstone. upon this choosing rests the remainder of the life-experience of an entity. the second seeking of love within the moment begins the addition. the third seeking empowers the second, the fourth powering or doubling the third. as with the previous type of empowerment, there will be some loss of power due to flaws within the seeking in the distortion of insincerity. however, the conscious statement of self to self of the desire to seek love is so central an act of will that, as before, the loss of power due to this friction is inconsequential.

exercise two. the universe is one being. when a mind/body/spirit complex views another mind/body/spirit complex, see the creator. this is an helpful exercise.

exercise three. gaze within a mirror. see the creator.

exercise four. gaze at the creation which lies about the mind/body/spirit complex of each entity. see the creator.

the foundation or prerequisite of these exercises is a predilection towards what may be called meditation, contemplation, or prayer. with this attitude, these exercises can be processed. without it, the data will not sink down into the roots of the tree of mind, thus enabling and ennobling the body and touching the spirit.

[sapedotru]

alright well like i mentioned i will seem be quite the nuisance to the posts so if i seem critical it is only for distillation and clarification at the most drastic measures. i will understand where you are going and what you meant by what you post. but to clarify the perfect equation in this scenario what you mean and where you were going will simply lack pure clarity in the case of the perfect equation unless you are trying to describe in detail what you are saying. keep in mind i will be doing it with only the best of intentions, please don't take anything personal

also if you have rebuttals or further questions about my response please do so. otherwise it would be a one-sided conversation. if you feel defeated and want to try another approach it would be just great.

"as for me, to draw all this together is purely the stuff of the law of one, and this loo exercise hints at the inevitable destination of distilling the experiences of our lives here:"

-first you start of by mentioning your personal reasoning, your identity does not pertain to all situations or events in life because everything has a different impression or no impression at all. second you mention a single teaching that is confined by words and concepts for a mean to find an end.-

"questioner: for the general development of the reader of this book, could you state some of the practices or exercises to perform to produce an acceleration toward the law of one? ra: i am ra."

-contains two seemingly separate beings with the questioner proclaiming by default that the reader of the book needs development and reading itself is confined to an entity that can comprehend language by visuals-

"exercise one. this is the most nearly centered and useable within your illusion complex."

-the statement infers that there needs to be an exercise in place and assumes that all humans by default at the time of reading the book have an illusionary complex.-

"the moment contains love. that is the lesson/goal of this illusion or density. "

-if there is a moment and love does that mean that they are two separate notions and if they are the same thing which one is it and how would you show that it is the basis of everything possible in existence? a lesson is only relevant to conscious being and is a process which cannot be taught to a tree. goals are dependent upon the ego. i won't go into the rest of lessons of exercise 1 because they are "all the same steps of one pyramid".-

"exercise two. the universe is one being."

-what is the universe?-

"exercise three. gaze within a mirror. see the creator."

-again there are prerequisites that only pertain to a fraction of creation. lego's cannot look into a mirror.-

"exercise four."

-i bet you can guess where i am going with this one also :d-

"the foundation or prerequisite of these exercises is a predilection towards what may be called meditation, contemplation, or prayer. with this attitude, these exercises can be processed. without it, the data will not sink down into the roots of the tree of mind, thus enabling and ennobling the body and touching the spirit."

-meditation touches "spirit" through meditation not the mind, again most of this statement would have no relevance to everything in the universe possible and is only subject to human conditioning and a process that spans two different realities or times.-

[Vjwkvkoy]

im glad this has come up, cause ive been trying to do that for as long as i can remember.

there is problems with this whole idea in principal which i'll explain:

these concepts are already connected in our mind, because of this it now must be explained in a way that makes universal sense exactly like it does in mind.

considering the whole of the idea it would encompass all existance, which is way too complex to process unless its made simple. similair to occams razor it would need to be reduced to be fully processed.

once something has been reduced that connects everything to that one, it becomes near impossible to explain to others. it can however be traversed on thier own and discovered with equal conviction.
-------

what i have so far. everything has an equal oppisate (laws of thermodynamics). instead of naming all of those just do the universal signs for electricity ( + o - or possitive, neutral, negative). neutral being no interjection but could still be a thought as long as no act has occured on your behalf. i call it the safe zone for discovering the true "charge" of the situation being negative or possitive. its alot easier to say "i dont know what i was thinking" rather then "what have i done?".

negative doesnt have to be bad. its representitive of ground. it grounds our energy, and our physical mass has a + and - as does our energy. we are the representation of balance between mass and energy.

hope this helps

[anderriter]

-meditation touches "spirit" through meditation not the mind, again most of this statement would have no relevance to everything in the universe possible and is only subject to human conditioning and a process that spans two different realities or times.- well isn't all subject to human conditioning? no matter what we say here and however we try to organize it all together... it will still be part of that conditioning!

love and light,
ra ma

ps: last night i wrote the most amazing input for this tread... but as the universe has it, computer had a glitch and i lost it all! maybe it's still not my time to speak out concerning this matter!

[snova]

sammy,

"there is problems with this whole idea in principal which i'll explain: these concepts are already connected in our mind, because of this it now must be explained in a way that makes universal sense exactly like it does in mind. "

-the language we use in text does not have to be and is not limited to concepts confined to the mind only. even though a lot of people learn things based off concepts many people have used language spoken or written to communicate things that may have absolutely nothing to do with the mind but since we are conditioned and wired to use language for communication it seems like it would have to make sense to the mind only but in fact it does not. as an example we can try to describe a very very peculiar mix of feelings but the feeling wouldn't have anything to do with information. i think this is what you were saying with what you posted later on down your post that i mention i agree 100% with. information as you may know can be a pointer but not always a complete the actual solution or finding itself. i am not looking for a principal rather a way to be competent of what is found and don't by any means want it to be confined by anything because a single preconceived guideline can easily throw the whole point of this thread off but of course we will be using written language as a deductive and exploration process that may or may not have anything to to with language, more so we are communicating.-

"considering the whole of the idea it would encompass all existence, which is way too complex to process unless its made simple. similair to occams razor it would need to be reduced to be fully processed."

-how do you know that it would be way too complex do you already know the answer? it is an assumption that it would have to be made simple but i do think simplicity has great value and do often use techniques similar to occam's razor when stripping something i am trying to understand or encompass down to the bare minimum necessary.-

"once something has been reduced that connects everything to that one, it becomes near impossible to explain to others. it can however be traversed on thier own and discovered with equal conviction."

-agree 100%-

"what i have so far. everything has an equal oppisate (laws of thermodynamics)."

-thermodynamics studies the behavior of energy flow in natural systems, the question i posted was; (bring in all the commonalities instead of subsections or transitions that can span across many many areas of practically anything and everything and could be seen in many situations, time lines, practices, feelings, experiences, world views, thoughts, space, unification efforts and matter itself regardless of complexity or seemingly large differences). sorry to drop the bomb so early and not go into the detail about the rest of your post but i do mean everything possible, and everything itself in any of its forms and energy is only a single factor.

you also already added too much by stating the natural flow, not everything flows naturally and i do acknowledge that even if things don't by scientific means flow naturally doesn't take away the possibility that in fact be flowing naturally because it maybe the universal will even if we don't agree with it or even understand it..... but you of course are talking about thermodynamics so this is science .-

[Buildityrit]

jeia ra manuk,

"well isn't all subject to human conditioning? no matter what we say here and however we try to organize it all together... it will still be part of that conditioning! "

-absolutely not! this is an assumption on your behalf and may part of your conditioning to believe that it has to be this way but for me i don't have any conditions on the answer so far, that would set the whole thing up to be biased and such a question can have nothing to do with bias . i didn't say come up with something that we connect to through human conditioning, we may be humans but the answer isn't restricted to do with being humanly conditioned you just at this point believe it to be. i said lets find and uncover the ultimate underlying current of all the things i mentioned above. if you have the answer already let me know what it is if you can muster up the energy to do so . i can then and only then explain what i mean by this but without knowing what you are talking about or seeing the answer you have i have no way of going into detail about why or why not it would be human-condition based.-

[somawaima]

love being .... being love

one love ... love all

[itaspCatCriny]

d5.jpg
d7.jpg
well, i only have two good diagrams ready!
i'm still upset about loosing all that info last night, so no explanations for now!

enjoy!

love,
ra ma

ps: excuse any spelling errors, there is no spell check in paint and english is not my first language!

[RealCHEAPsoftDOWNLOAD]

well i am just conditioned to think this way hehe!
can you guys see the diagrams? i am opening them and can't view them any bigger!

jeia ra manuk,

"well isn't all subject to human conditioning? no matter what we say here and however we try to organize it all together... it will still be part of that conditioning! "

-absolutely not! this is an assumption on your behalf and may part of your conditioning to believe that it has to be this way but for me i don't have any conditions on the answer so far, that would set the whole thing up to be biased and such a question can have nothing to do with bias. i didn't say come up with something that we connect to through human conditioning, we may be humans but the answer isn't restricted to do with being humanly conditioned you just at this point believe it to be. i said lets find and uncover the ultimate underlying current of all the things i mentioned above. if you have the answer already let me know what it is if you can muster up the energy to do so. i can then and only then explain what i mean by this but without knowing what you are talking about or seeing the answer you have i have no way of going into detail about why or why not it would be human-condition based.-

[glagoliska]

i am reposting them... cuz if i can't zoom in on them... then the chances you guys can't see them either, or well at least, you can't see what it says!




if these come out small as well, try opening them in a new tab/window.

[Aswdwdfg]

spiral, a passive suggestion for purposes of this thread - keep in mind that we are humans who all seem to have conditioned biases, whether we want to admit it or not. if you believe otherwise, that's perfectly okay with me! also, our course of human discovery and learning may not be likely to be fruitful without exercises and protocols for self-development - this is what we signed on for, here, i feel.

love in the moment - rationalize that to pieces if you will, but an imperfect mental concept stemming from intuition or heart when communicated verbally is often an attempt to use dualism to describe a wholistic concept - in my opinion, only ever an admirable, albeit imperfect artform. i'm an artist who is pretty good in my own mind and some others, and i'd always like to hear critique as long as my work is not dismissed outright by one who sees only the flaws.

you're looking for responses in a literary format, written by humans for humans, about underlying currents. are you attempting to see the love in the responses? i can't really speak for a lego, other than to surmise that the universal first density constituent chemicals/vibratory signatures which make up the polymers of the block may be challenged to discover second density awareness of being. it's entirely possible to rebut convincingly anything which erupts from the mouth! linear verbalization in time is assailable always, even if the heart prompting which spawned it isn't.


imo, all your answers are coming from humans, and will be unescapably fraught with biases couched in human conditioning.

are you asking me what the universe is? i can't answer that one for you. if you unequivocably tell me and others that our ideas are unequivocably not true, you will only soon be hearing your own voice, methinks!

don't take that personally, spiral. the depth of my heart feeling and love for all of life/consciousness taken as a whole, beyond my own human biases and conditioning is profound yet still developing, and impossible to communicate quantifiably and scientifically to a peer reviewable and duplicable laboratory. as a human with a heart, i know that my feelings are perfect for me, and can be shared only on the stage of heart-willingness on the part of others to open to my vibrations.

as a unique viewpoint aspect of awakeness, in human form, i love polymers and all other manifestations of me, yet can't avoid verbalizing through my humanity if asked to verbalize. i can, however, lessen my investment into relative intellectual wrangling, fault finding and human angst by exercising the practise of finding the love in all situations. i find that this leads me into an inner awareness of the infinite valuation of my and all others' travails, oreos included! this is how i reach towards an awareness which may take me beyond my conditioning, and may also have me share with others something of my own unique and unduplicable vibratory signature... unduplicable, yet maybe able to be matched with other vibrations - human sourced or otherwise - in harmonic and delicious aggregated geometric symphonic patterns - depending on intent and desire to be close, or otherwise.

btw, i'm hoping this kind of response is more of what you're looking for, in keeping with the intent of the thread. mark

[johnstylet]

concerning the inescapable quandary encountered in any attempt to fashion a viable critique of pure reason in the face of limitations encountered by the given inclinations of the intricate processes of the human brain as fashioned by the one creator for our use here in third density.

i hope the above helps makes my position on this subject crystal clear...in short, i think i agree with what that guy mark wrote before me....at least the parts that i could understand.

it seems to me, dear spiral, that you are setting up everyone dumb enough to bite on this challenge of yours (and that indeed is what it is) for a humiliating failure in not meeting your stated criteria.

i can't but help thinking of you as being something like a ruthless hunter-- concealed in a blind, overlooking a tempting bait designed to lure the unwary, would-be intelecti onto the killing zone, whereupon you can zap them real good when they flounder (founder?)

ok. so it may seem that i exaggerate. however, not me, but an unseen force took over my flying typing fingers. i think i heard the words,,,immanu...somethig kant...not sure.

but anyway, for thousands of years hundreds of thousands of laboring philosophers have banged there heads fruitlessly trying to solve such conundrums. however, understanding is not of this dimension..needless to say you are pretty darned smart, mr.spiral!!

billybobbutterball esq.

[electmobile]

gemlove,

"love being .... being love one love ... love all"

-can you please describe love in this context and it implications to being, one and all?-

[Madjostok]

dear spiracycle

-how do you know that it would be way too complex do you already know the answer? it is an assumption that it would have to be made simple but i do think simplicity has great value and do often use techniques similar to occam's razor when stripping something i am trying to understand or encompass down to the bare minimum necessary.- its too complex because, to connect everything you would have to hold all of existance in your mind at one time in one thought. do this and ill recant. all of space known or unknown.

im saying one thing can be attained that could be used to connect to all of existance, but you have to go through all the ropes. if i say "0" to me means exactly "all of existance" i.e. energy/mass, neither created nor destroyed. but for you to believe that, is a huge gap in understanding. even if i dont know it exists its possibility is open to me.

"what i have so far. everything has an equal oppisate (laws of thermodynamics)."

-thermodynamics studies the behavior of energy flow in natural systems, the question i posted was; (bring in all the commonalities instead of subsections or transitions that can span across many many areas of practically anything and everything and could be seen in many situations, time lines, practices, feelings, experiences, world views, thoughts, space, unification efforts and matter itself regardless of complexity or seemingly large differences). sorry to drop the bomb so early and not go into the detail about the rest of your post but i do mean everything possible, and everything itself in any of its forms and energy is only a single factor.

you also already added too much by stating the natural flow, not everything flows naturally and i do acknowledge that even if things don't by scientific means flow naturally doesn't take away the possibility that in fact be flowing naturally because it maybe the universal will even if we don't agree with it or even understand it..... but you of course are talking about thermodynamics so this is science .- the interaction is best explained through the laws of thermodynaics. its been established that mass can act like a wave or "energy". you might be suprised how similair they are, after all we use both every second of the day as a unit. or better yet, would we have energy if no mass existed?

you want to encompass peoples practices into this equation, how will this be done if no personal interjection can take place? i have not found a "one" thing everyone would accept to take the journey, but there is only one journey and as long as they connect in some way im happy.

this actualy reminds me of a riddle, "whats one thing that everyone would want and use, from the richest man to a tribal native?"

[UJRonald]

jeia ra manuk,

the diagram you post is very good visual dynamic part of which are teachings mentioned in the law of one material and can definitely be utilized in many ways. there are many different parts to it which are great visual representations of different things and will post my response based on what i see as the conclusions, principles and meaning for all the different parts of the diagram so we can synthesize it down even further to see the picture as a whole so we can then understand what the basis of the synthesis regarding your post is.

in one section (top left to top middle right along with the color chart in the middle) you explain the process of the pattern of souls as described by the entity channeled known as ra. this is just a description of the process of consciousness described by ra.

then on the top right you say that being positively orientated strips physical form but i am not sure exactly how this works and if that is correct positive orientation would be impossible in a physical universe because the physical universe itself would be stripped according to how it would work based on the conclusion you present. positive orientation would itself be only part of the picture because as you know something that seems to be one way is in contrast with something that is another way, i am trying to understand what would be the base current that would generate both the positive and orientation and the negative orientation. yet orientation is usually the direction of thought and the inclination it has towards something. so orientation would have to be left out of the equation as a deductive process because inclination of thought is a biased representation of form itself.

you go on to mention going down the paragraph that most matter comes in the form of atoms. atoms have been said to be found 99.99% empty (as you and most others already probably know), if there is anything found inside that to would have to have empty space between itself and the next "ca china doll" but ultimately it would have to be empty regardless of form or size in order for the actual structure to be observable because the structure itself is a contrast something and in order to have contrast there has to be emptiness in order to see both.the atom we actually observe is actually just the dynamic result need to function with all other matter as a physical mechanism (we now experience and observe) which just so happens to be in the shape we perceive as a sphere yet as i mentioned this sphere is a visual representation of something completely empty and as it we observe it in the physical universe. this is probably because it has to function as a spherical field. yet even between atoms the space is actually empty also because that just so happens to be the natural consequence in order for things to function as they do

going further down sts and sto i am guessing is referencing service to others and service to self. can you please post evidence that the orientation in which your "service" is applied has a direct connection to gaining or losing electrons?

in the bigger diagram where you show stars inside an oval that which are noted by the key to be sections of spirit. i don't know what this is trying to describe in relation to the source field. if there is spirit in the source field what is the spirit and how does it tie into the rest of the universe in it's myriad of facets?

in the last two graphs you explain many things about time/space space/time into form with gravity, chemicals and electricity, i don't know what you are trying to point out with all of these things but at this point see is a description of a process, but it doesn't describe the base or the commonality it has to regard of everything else

so to break this down we have spirit, the hypothesis that electrons are related to the orientation of helping or not helping others as conscious parcels of spirit know as souls, the direction of thoughts (orientation) which are "positive" in whatever context it is supposed to be that strips away all physical form, the description of matter in relationship to an atom, the relationship between space/time time/space in regard to spirit and other universal law and finally the process of spirit as described by an entity described as ra in which conscious beings, souls and consciousness itself that goes through an operation we choose to perceive as of time as described according to a reading of someone that mentions (in the reading) comes from an entity known as ra.

what things connect all of these portions things together and is the foundation that sits at the core of their existence?

i really did enjoy going over all of this and hope that you are pleased with it being condensed and please don't feel offended that i condensed it without making any of it personally biased.

[Kryfamid]

spiracycle, to further explain my use of thermodynamics. i'ts the transference that im mostly focussing on. there is alot of laws of what happens during the transference, but basicly neither created nor destroyed it can only transfer. how this works for mass is similair, if i move a block a long distance ill have transfered my mass for this displacement. leaving behind skin cells and building heat burning off my physical mass and leaving it behind as sweat. they act in similair ways just under different perameters of the field, one being mass and one being energy. or in the case of living organisms, both.

[spaxiaroorbes]

you go on to mention going down the paragraph that most matter comes in the form of atoms. atoms have been said to be found 99.99% empty (as you and most others already probably know), if there is anything found inside that to would have to have empty space between itself and the next "ca china doll" but ultimately it would have to be empty regardless of form or size in order for the actual structure to be observable because the structure itself is a contrast something and in order to have contrast there has to be emptiness in order to see both.the atom we actually observe is actually just the dynamic result need to function with all other matter as a physical mechanism (we now experience and observe) which just so happens to be in the shape we perceive as a sphere yet as i mentioned this sphere is a visual representation of something completely empty and as it we observe it in the physical universe. this is probably because it has to function as a spherical field. yet even between atoms the space is actually empty also because that just so happens to be the natural consequence in order for things to function as they do
this is one of the more complicated subjects to understand when coming to anti-matter and matter. its best not to think of it as "empty" cause its still space its just space with no or - mass. as you stated its the natural consequence, which would be time. the distance or "space" is whats needed for time within the space, if there was no distance there would be no time. it would just be space/mass and not space/time.

[LesLattis]

markm,

(part one)

"our course of human discovery and learning may not be likely to be fruitful without exercises and protocols for self-development - this is what we signed on for, here, i feel."

-i agree that exercises and protocols for development have great value and will not contest that. learning and human discovery i think are actually exercises for development, can you please tell my why learning and human discovery are not fruitful and how they aren't exercises of self development? i never did say that other modalities cannot be ways to understand things as a whole. anyone that doesn't want to be part of this thread whether or not they post or read it can choose to avoid the thread all together i never said that it is a must to post in this thread. i am not forcing anyone to think that this is the only way to development and think that would be a very unwise approach to go by.-

"love in the moment - rationalize that to pieces if you will, but an imperfect mental concept stemming from intuition or heart when communicated verbally is often an attempt to use dualism to describe a wholistic concept - in my opinion, only ever an admirable, albeit imperfect artform. i'm an artist who is pretty good in my own mind and some others, and i'd always like to hear critique as long as my work is not dismissed outright by one who sees only the flaws."

-i have no problem with attempts to describe a wholistic concept actually a large reason of this thread was to encourage it ! i never dismissed your work i only reported parts that would not function correctly in figuring out the equation sorry if you felt like i just dauntingly attempted to dispose of everything you said, my feelings are that the more we converse back and forth the "further ahead we will be later on" because we have already attempted to understand things that will or will not work in the equation.-

"are you attempting to see the love in the responses?"

-for me part of love is going through a learning process together and sharing everything we know so if somebody responds to my questions i definitely see that they care enough to help me and love/admire them for doing so because it is an act of courage-

"i can't really speak for a lego, other than to surmise that the universal first density constituent chemicals/vibratory signatures which make up the polymers of the block may be challenged to discover second density awareness of being. it's entirely possible to rebut convincingly anything which erupts from the mouth!"

-i don't dispute that inanimate objects especially not nature based have a hard time discovering awareness of being. what i was trying to show is when it has to pertain to everything in the universe possible a lego can also be part of the universe and if there are statements for describing the basis of all the universe it couldn't be subject to experience as conscious beings only. so i said lego as an example of a non living non perceiving part of the universe and if that was part of the proposal the criteria simply wouldn't fit what i am trying to get at. (hopefully this makes sense if people get confused please go over what i mean a few times to try and understand). i understand and know that anything from the mouth is easily refuted in many situations but i am not for or against this i just try to point out when it is and is not relevant to the topic and can easily go both ways and have no intention to rebut whatsoever.-

"linear verbalization in time is assailable always, even if the heart prompting which spawned it isn't."

-i understand this and i want to make clear this is not or will never be my intention. it may seem that way but hope that people will read what i am saying rather than what it seems that i am doing.-

[Imagimifouxum]

markm,

(part two)

"imo, all your answers are coming from humans, and will be unescapably fraught with biases couched in human conditioning."

-i have no problem with them stemming from human condition or bias and wouldn't expect them not to be i thought i was just helping by showing them what is biased to help them take apart the areas of discussion which in this one bias simply cannot work and unfortunately people are use to using language in a biased way a lot which in some cases are perfectly fine and part of the learning experience and serve as the highest function in certain situations but as you know in science when somebody has the final equation it doesn't need them to be biased with things such as attitude, desire, belief, religion, philosophy so on and so forth. i want this conversation to be a scientific one! if people use all of those things as a process in the formulation phase or even want to tell me why they feel or think a certain way be my guest but to put it as the equation it simply won't work with the thing i am trying to find.-

"are you asking me what the universe is? i can't answer that one for you. if you unequivocably tell me and others that our ideas are unequivocably not true, you will only soon be hearing your own voice, methinks!"

-no, i am asking what the basis of all things in creation are because somehow they are tied together, many people don't believe this is possible to understand but i feel like nothing is impossible so if they don't think it is a possibility they can feel that way but telling me that won't help my attempts and only sabotage what i have put energy into. i never told anybody anything unequivocally i just point out the reason it would not work and also encouraged everyone to refute what i say which you are now doing and challenge the things i have put fourth which i am glad you are doing. that is the only way to a healthy process of learning. if we weren't all expressing ourselves to one another and the responses we have, we would not learn anything or get anywhere so of course i am educated enough not to be this way. if others choose to leave because they don't like me showing a part of what would not work i don't mind that either. i also mentioned that i would seem very critical and to not take offense. so if people left out of frustration from me being critical or want to leave that would be fine and would be something they would have to deal with because i tried to state it was easily bound to happen and did now want it to be that way the reason i stated that is because i didn't want people to feel like they are catching to much heat because that again is not my intention.-

"the depth of my heart feeling and love for all of life/consciousness taken as a whole, beyond my own human biases and conditioning is profound yet still developing, and impossible to communicate quantifiably and scientifically to a peer reviewable and duplicable laboratory. as a human with a heart, i know that my feelings are perfect for me, and can be shared only on the stage of heart-willingness on the part of others to open to my vibrations."

-everything is always changing and new things are of course going to develop it is the nature of nature itself to be this way and am glad you see this. somethings will never be felt or experienced the same way it originally was especially if it has to be reviewable with more than one party and at this point would seem impossible. you are correct in order to share anything there has be a willingness from both hosts when harboring such a thing. i very happy to know you feel that your feelings are perfect for you -