Free will, free reign?

[nzwasp]

I've heard it said many times that we create our own reality - that which we
desire is brought forth. I see how this would work, but how exactly does free
will fit into the equation? If we could completely create the reality we wanted
for ourselves, wouldn't the free will of other people/entities be compromised?

Endless Love and Light!
- John

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[darrel clark]

For some time I have not been chatting in this particular chatroom,maybe so as
not to intrude upon other's free will...But seriously-I think 'to make your
reality' is another way of saying everyone,wanderer or not,because of an endless
array of decisions spanned across endless lifetimes,makes their own bed.You make
your own maya-reality within the maya-reality of the said,agreed-upon
universe... ---Darrel
----- Original Message -----
From: cococube11@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=YFOP9mDPljElv7VMW8Eqx5KqnZASVgIq2l25k0 hUXVXUvf50_mlYhO_gfWyaFkm6XuBz6LsQNu0ABmMj)
To: asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=vXLr_3S2bG41R9djxbWKJJ-d86Yi7kxQvqLr355lu2W496hVl2VKlroJGQ_-oB8Tf-YgsnFz3JFhpiKGZ6Yy8w)
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 6:27 PM
Subject: [asc2k] Free will, free reign?


I've heard it said many times that we create our own reality - that which we
desire is brought forth. I see how this would work, but how exactly does free
will fit into the equation? If we could completely create the reality we wanted
for ourselves, wouldn't the free will of other people/entities be compromised?

Endless Love and Light!
- John

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Michael Abrient]

On 9/12/06, cococube11@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=fgSkHyBhF0_8Zzf3Dhx428GlrzVhtx0Zkk_n02 G3j84Rc5Y0iydTxoPX15odmzAQjHZQwxaulC5t0Is31w) <cococube11@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=fgSkHyBhF0_8Zzf3Dhx428GlrzVhtx0Zkk_n02 G3j84Rc5Y0iydTxoPX15odmzAQjHZQwxaulC5t0Is31w)> wrote:
>
> I've heard it said many times that we create our own reality - that which
> we desire is brought forth. I see how this would work, but how exactly does
> free will fit into the equation? If we could completely create the reality
> we wanted for ourselves, wouldn't the free will of other people/entities be
> compromised?


A: Ra says on the higher levels every desire is instantly granted-- on the
thought planes and up, you can manifest anything, create anything, have your
world be whatever, etc., and of course the structural integrity of reality
and the free will of others won't be compromised.

The same process goes on in 3D, but at a much slower pace. There are many
reasons for this. Number one, we would wreck everything. Ra said so, and I
think that's pretty much a given. A planet full of people with no one having
their stuff straight wouldn't know what best to manifest, and things would
just become impossible to sustain. Two, this vibration is inherently slower
than the rest, but that's not to say that the process isn't going on. Quarks
and quantum particles and such are constantly materializing and
dematerialize for "no reason", out of "nowhere", for infinitesimal periods
of time. Also, Ra talks about cancers in the body being caused by thought
forms or personal attitudes, which is also because of the manifestation
process. And as David pointed out, around the early 1970's, something
changed in the earth's core (picture a crystalline entity) big time, which
is symptomatic of the Earth having already lurched forward into 4D without
us. So, while things are typically slower in 3D, it's obviously starting to
pick up.

And as a third, my own corollary to add to that would be that the reality
around us here in 3D is partially a consensus (aside from being generated by
the Creator), based on the push and pull of everyone's and everything's free
will and their manifestations, i.e. a probability vortex. 3D is the density
where free will is most accentuated (2D = existence, with little upward
drive, 3D = free will, 4D = Love, 5D = Wisdom, 6D = Love & Wisdom, 7D =
Sacredness of All Things, etc.), so the game's been rigged so everyone can
play nice.

I think Ra talks about it in Book II, but I can't remember for sure.

Be well,
A


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[John Michael Roods]

ACIM suggests that we have free will to choose between two choices. One choice
takes us on a very long convoluted process in time & space, the other is
timeless and eternal.

Free will is an illusion of the Ego decision process. Our true free will always
has only two choices and one of those choices is an illusion. The two choices
are Ego (illusions) or Higher consciousness (Holy Spirit). HS may be STO. One
could say that the Ego is Lucifer.

In other words the truth does set you free. Free from what? Perceptions which
are judgements of Ego. Ego creates the drama and we love our drama so in both
choices we get to experience Love.....love of indivdual drama or love of God's
Peace.

I love this quote from somewher: Whether you Believe you can or you believe
you can not you are right. SO whether you believe in Ego or you believe in God
(and you can not believe in both) you are right and your mind will lead you to
where you believe. Free will.jMikerAs I do to others, I do to myself Forgiveness
is for giving and is Forgiving


To: asc2k@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=4j0iXAWT2XeqFKrqJj-lI3JrxGZCPo173opsKQuwD05U1oef-4YiomkoR1BvlBWVQIormtG6-EsyDJC5Rvs7nVQ): zurch@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=DPAr76f4nwRWNlyMcWYS49ZIINpOfIRCMxf6Jg f603NzOtAaOCik0WdE1_OjbKoXb2WPz9xuw9LYZycP7R81): Tue, 12 Sep 2006
20:42:44 -0700Subject: Re: [asc2k] Free will, free reign?




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[j_stubler]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=6kzxRY1N6g8QQXlx-B_P2Fye108ZntmUIgkF77ZAtFCYXPulerl_B0eKcgd7LkgBJIT FKPjw4NIxCO62U3A), cococube11@... wrote:
>
> I've heard it said many times that we create our own reality - that
which we desire is brought forth. I see how this would work, but how
exactly does free will fit into the equation? If we could completely
create the reality we wanted for ourselves, wouldn't the free will of
other people/entities be compromised?
>
> Endless Love and Light!
> - John
>
>(Joe)
John, hence the stuggle between service to SELF and service to OTHERS.

Peace,

Joe
>

[Jon Taylor]

John

There is a viewpoint called subjective reality that could be the same as the
non duality that RA speaks of. I think the quote was something like "They
are unable to see us as separate...".

A subjective reality view states that there is only one consciousness, that
you are that consciousness and everything you experience is a reflection of
your thoughts. From an objective perspective you assume that other people
have a separate consciousness from your own. But you can't prove that they
have a consciousness because everything that you experience is always from
your own (1) awareness. Assuming that there is more than one consciousness
is an unprovable leap of faith.

If you believe that you can compromise the free will of others then that is
the reality you will create. Your experience of others is a reflection of
your thoughts and beliefs.

You can try changing different thoughts for yourself and see what happens.
If I'm wrong then you will know for sure.

I have a link to an article that I think explains this brilliantly but I
can't post it here. If you would like it I can send it to you privately.

Hope this helps
Jon

On 9/12/06, cococube11@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=v2HnkB2AE56pNXp-TnFeOHhmc_tx3rVQfz4KD8SfxE0eVQT_Req4GWphG0S2EmxWaZ C51wWIolZR3TcY) <cococube11@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=v2HnkB2AE56pNXp-TnFeOHhmc_tx3rVQfz4KD8SfxE0eVQT_Req4GWphG0S2EmxWaZ C51wWIolZR3TcY)> wrote:
>
> I've heard it said many times that we create our own reality - that
> which we desire is brought forth. I see how this would work, but how exactly
> does free will fit into the equation? If we could completely create the
> reality we wanted for ourselves, wouldn't the free will of other
> people/entities be compromised?
>
> Endless Love and Light!
> - John
>
> [
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[jess9dob]

In a message dated 9/13/06 6:22:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
roodsjmr11@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=RYEqqwTurvVDqtl6k8n2_tdBn7qCg00XvZBuB_ gI4Rl-aynpdwVnDTwFHaD5QZJyg-vCginstmO9Q2s_9A) writes:

> SO whether you believe in Ego or you believe in God (and you can not
believe
> in both)....

I disagree. I think there is a balance of caring for self and service of
others. RA says we of Earth will be harvestable if we are over 50-percent into
service of others. Thus, we would graduate to forth density while still being
almost half differentiated ego.

Agape,
Don Eli

[jupitergirl63]

I disagree that the ego is "bad". It is a matter of how it is used
like anything else. Is a cup of coffee good or bad? Depends on how
it is used. If you drink say 1 cup of coffee a day you might be in
balance. If you drink 100 cups of coffee a day then you are likely
a caffinated and frazzled wreck.

I think that we have to have an ego in order to survive in our 3D
world with others. It was given to us so it must have a purpose
since God does not make mistakes. It is our job to recognize when
we are working from ego and when we are not...which is why it was
given to us in the first place. It is to enable us to draw
attention to the other parts of self and is a learning tool. It
helps us find what we are aware of in our lives and what we are not
aware of. Others can help us with learning about our egos. Ego
causes us to have to interact with others so we can learn about
ourselves more. Or maybe all of this is just my ego talking cause
you told it it was "bad" ;)

Jan

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=EzDuGANf-8G7SvqM9RWlywo9PY8w8gXQkfOsLCHqKC-VIYvE_Ue_bLCLxTF1jqaRnuFFxveNp2BrR4-Hg3R2Mw), "John Michael Roods" <roodsjmr11@...>
wrote:

ACIM suggests that we have free will to choose between two choices.
One choice takes us on a very long convoluted process in time &
space, the other is timeless and eternal.

Free will is an illusion of the Ego decision process. Our true free
will always has only two choices and one of those choices is an
illusion. The two choices are Ego (illusions) or Higher
consciousness (Holy Spirit). HS may be STO. One could say that the
Ego is Lucifer.

In other words the truth does set you free. Free from what?
Perceptions which are judgements of Ego. Ego creates the drama and
we love our drama so in both choices we get to experience
Love.....love of indivdual drama or love of God's Peace.

I love this quote from somewher: Whether you Believe you can or
you believe you can not you are right. SO whether you believe in
Ego or you believe in God (and you can not believe in both) you are
right and your mind will lead you to where you believe. Free
will.jMikerAs I do to others, I do to myself Forgiveness is for
giving and is Forgiving

[jpstephens2012]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=msacg0AQcykUyQ2AFxrCuqtIEgH4KfM6U4wvM-CV4rlf3LCaIBc8ofub3Irmtqtr_BZS-rDtbpwbAB4), "jupitergirl63" <jupitergirl63@...> wrote:
>
> I disagree that the ego is "bad". It is a matter of how it is used
> like anything else. Is a cup of coffee good or bad? Depends on how
> it is used. If you drink say 1 cup of coffee a day you might be in
> balance. If you drink 100 cups of coffee a day then you are likely
> a caffinated and frazzled wreck.
>
> I think that we have to have an ego in order to survive in our 3D
> world with others. It was given to us so it must have a purpose
> since God does not make mistakes. It is our job to recognize when
> we are working from ego and when we are not...which is why it was
> given to us in the first place. It is to enable us to draw
> attention to the other parts of self and is a learning tool. It
> helps us find what we are aware of in our lives and what we are not
> aware of. Others can help us with learning about our egos. Ego
> causes us to have to interact with others so we can learn about
> ourselves more. Or maybe all of this is just my ego talking cause
> you told it it was "bad" ;)
>
> Jan


I don't think that ego is "bad". However, your own description shows
very plainly what ego is. Ego is fear. In any given situation our
instinctual response stems from ego, such as disagreement with the
ideas or concepts of others. Many times you see it where someone comes
back with the snide or cutting remark related to another's
intelligence or education or social status, etc. Ego response is the
automatic response to a given catalyst when thought is not taken. Ego
stems from the STS orientation and is the result of fear that is
created when we react from the self rather than the Creator portion of
our being. Once we progress beyond the belief in good/bad, (insert
matched pair here), the ego ceases to exist and we are free to make
the choice based upon our own free will. Ego is simply a failure to
make a free will choice from a STO perspective. It is a perfect tool
for the STS perspective because that orientation denies the creator
within them.

[jupitergirl63]

Hi JP,

The examples you show are those where ego is displayed as negative.
Yes, very true - an ego can display fear. However, it also doesn't
always have to do so. I can show you equally where someone with a
strong ego displays confidence and works for the benefit of others
like during emergencies when those around them aren't so strong as
to affect a positive outcome, say getting people out of harms way in
the event that a tornado is passing though and people don't want to
evacuate their homes even when critically necessary. People react
to strong personalities - where those personalities are good or bad.
To me, it is a matter of how one uses their ego to affect others
and self that labels it "good" or "bad".

IMHO, I don't think that ego can be sliced and diced away from the
rest of self. What would be learn then by having to deal with an
ego at all? It is a part of the whole. It must be consciously
managed and transformed, not torn out. Even in the practice of the
Tao, it is a matter of mastering what one is versus getting rid of
parts of oneself.

Jan

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=inR7IQp_PF3mxISkb_KMMwd-qw1JisSiMfizCrXXX0e46RodzzKYzsp9JZ8ZamXmL3N3Y5vTtC Itv59cIiw2), "jpstephens2012" <jpstephenslives@...>
wrote:
> I don't think that ego is "bad". However, your own description
shows very plainly what ego is. Ego is fear. In any given situation
our
> instinctual response stems from ego, such as disagreement with the
> ideas or concepts of others. Many times you see it where someone
comes
> back with the snide or cutting remark related to another's
> intelligence or education or social status, etc. Ego response is
the
> automatic response to a given catalyst when thought is not taken.
Ego
> stems from the STS orientation and is the result of fear that is
> created when we react from the self rather than the Creator
portion of
> our being. Once we progress beyond the belief in good/bad, (insert
> matched pair here), the ego ceases to exist and we are free to make
> the choice based upon our own free will. Ego is simply a failure to
> make a free will choice from a STO perspective. It is a perfect
tool
> for the STS perspective because that orientation denies the creator
> within them.
>

[jess9dob]

In a message dated 9/17/06 12:23:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jupitergirl63@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=gkkOILd2pgexURJHDVUtO_xFlkaEA756fYdBIH k4gSqvZGKONcNOJOERNrM9gIO_WpbC9b4KeqSs1Laudw) writes:

> I don't think that ego can be sliced and diced away from the
> rest of self. What would be learn then by having to deal with an
> ego at all? It is a part of the whole. It must be consciously
> managed and transformed, not torn out. Even in the practice of the
> Tao, it is a matter of mastering what one is versus getting rid of
> parts of oneself.

I agree with JupiterGirl. Who the ego serves is the important thing. I
think I could not get out of bed in the morning without ego, regardless of being
STS or STO.

Agape,
Don Eli

[jess9dob]

Don Eli: RA describes (below) magical invocation of one's higher self.
Would this penetrate the forgetting? Would that lessen the progress that one
can
make from encountering 3-D catalysts?

<a href="http://www.divinecosmos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=129&Itemid=36">http://www.divinecosmos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=129&Itemid\
=36</a>

6-VI. THE HIGHER SELF IS ALSO CALLED THE MAGICAL PERSONALITY

RA: When the magical personality is properly invoked the self has invoked its
Higher Self. Thus ...the 6th density magical personality experiences directly
the 3rd density catalyst for the duration of the working. It is most central
to deliberately take off the magical personality after the working in order
that the Higher Self may resume its appropriate function as your Higher Self
operating in many realms, not just in the 3rd density. (B3, 192)

[James Stephens]

Hi Jan,

I guess the question is really what definition of Ego is used here.
After reading your post I decided to do some minor research on the
word. There are several definitions listed in the Encarta, one of
which actually surprised me in its wording. Apparently, the definition
depends on the subject.

1. Appropriate self-esteem - "somebody's idea of his or her own
importance or worth, usually of an appropriate level"
2. Inflated opinion of yourself - "an exaggerated sense of your own
importance and a feeling of superiority to other people"
3. Part of the mind containing consciousness - "psychoanalysis - in
Freudian psychology, one of three main divisions of the mind,
containing consciousness and memory and involved with control,
planning, and conforming to reality"
And the one which surprised me...
4. The self - "philosophy - the individual self, as distinct from the
outside world and other selves"
I thought it was interesting to see a reference to "other selves"
outside the RA material. :)

Anyway, I usually associate the word with the first two definitions. I
don't really see the positive things you referred to, such as
confidence, being part of the ego but rather strength of spirit and
"selfless" consideration for others. Indeed, using other poorly
defines terms, I consider the term devil or Satan to actually refer to
our Ego, such as "tempted by the devil" or "led by Satan" etc., which
we normally relate to evil or bad. But indeed those things are only
our SELFish natures. We only consider those notions to be "evil" or
"bad" because we have chosen the STO path and anything of a selfish
nature would seem detrimental to that pursuit. However, anything of an
"evil" nature helps to stimulate our recognition of "good" and
reinforces our desire to do the right things, thereby becoming
something "good". They are only catalysts. No matter how much we think
that this physical plane is real, it's not. It's merely a hologram and
it's only purpose it to speed the rate of advancement of our souls,
and as enlightenment comes, the Ego falls away for there is no Ego in One.

Peace and light

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=4Ctaz6M7vtZcCgAQUWyltvrQ9MVff9pvdz9Vmh SaQwE9gbJwbMLNyW1wXDa4MzGWQpvVSPOSZvaKqs46KA), "jupitergirl63" <jupitergirl63@...> wrote:
>
> Hi JP,
>
> The examples you show are those where ego is displayed as negative.
> Yes, very true - an ego can display fear. However, it also doesn't
> always have to do so. I can show you equally where someone with a
> strong ego displays confidence and works for the benefit of others
> like during emergencies when those around them aren't so strong as
> to affect a positive outcome, say getting people out of harms way in
> the event that a tornado is passing though and people don't want to
> evacuate their homes even when critically necessary. People react
> to strong personalities - where those personalities are good or bad.
> To me, it is a matter of how one uses their ego to affect others
> and self that labels it "good" or "bad".
>
> IMHO, I don't think that ego can be sliced and diced away from the
> rest of self. What would be learn then by having to deal with an
> ego at all? It is a part of the whole. It must be consciously
> managed and transformed, not torn out. Even in the practice of the
> Tao, it is a matter of mastering what one is versus getting rid of
> parts of oneself.
>
> Jan

[jupitergirl63]

Hi Jim,

Good find! It is very interesting what you turned up with the
definitions of the word ego. To me definition #2 in particular
refers to the "negative" side of ego. It is definition #3 that I
look upon as being rather neutral, and then #4 as being the point
where the person can choose which way ego will display itself ? in a
positive or a negative light. It demonstrates control of ego. It
is this definition that I have become aware of only in the past 5 or
so years. This definition of ego knocked my socks off when I found
out about it. I had to change my way of thinking because of it.

About 4 years ago, your definition #4 began manifesting in my life
over and over again and I could not ignore it. I had to learn to
let go of things and stop worrying about what would happen in
scenario A or scenario B. When I learned to let go more and more
and started allowing things into my life, I found that my mind no
longer "babbled" non-stop with just ego talk but that other parts of
self could get through more. It was then that I found that I could
shape ego by allowing it to sit back at times and then when the
information I needed simply manifested by the letting go process
that I could use ego to put a plan into action. For me, it was a
matter of trusting self ? including ego, and reconciling that "bad"
side of my own ego with the "good" side of my own ego. When I did
this, the babbling inside my head significantly dropped and I felt
like my heart and mind were one. I can only imagine what it is like
to have this type of "merging" happened at a higher density. Must
be awesome.

I remember reading a passage in this one book on Tibetan meditation
that said that when your thoughts are no longer centered in your
head that you manifest more strongly what you want in your life. It
further continued that if we could simply get out of our heads that
we would be able to "hear" the universe talking to us, but that
until we did it was simply like being "deaf".

I thought I would also look up a word at www.dictionary.com. The
word being self.
When I did I found the below:

1. a person or thing referred to with respect to complete
individuality: one's own self.
2. a person's nature, character, etc.: his better self.
3. personal interest.
4. Philosophy.
a. the ego; that which knows, remembers, desires, suffers, etc.,
as contrasted with that known, remembered, etc.
b. the uniting principle, as a soul, underlying all subjective
experience.

I found it interesting that definition #2 talks about the self and
then definition #4a talks about ego. Also, I found it interesting
that definition #4a talked about self as that which remembers?which
to me mean that which knows, is conscious and aware. For me, this
means that as self (comprised of ego + higher self + unconscious
self) becomes aware of its other parts/selves, and it has the
ability to change what it is in this awareness. It is a uniting
principle (definition #4b), and hence in my mind this means that
self (which has a component of ego) cannot be separated from the
whole self.

You said "I don't really see the positive things you referred to,
such as confidence, being part of the ego but rather strength of
spirit and "selfless" consideration for others." So I decided to
look up the word confidence in the dictionary too. Definition #2
for the word confidence said: belief in oneself and one's powers or
abilities; self-confidence; self-reliance; assurance.

So it seems that we find ego in self from my earlier definition
search on the word self, and then the word confidence circling back
to the word self?and isn't confidence looked upon as something being
positive???!!! Interesting isn't it! I'm learning with you, Jim,
on this. Good discussion.

I agree with you when you say that as we move up through the
densities that ego falls away more and more. I thought this was an
interesting observation on your part.

Peace and light right back at ya :)

Jan

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=nMQc55zgy8cj9F86m0cJzGroMhWnAdPdzoTK2_ B610Bl_YdSpk9IUbod737zJJ4WgfI_WmNyKMIO4qts), "James Stephens" <jpstephenslives@...>
wrote:

Hi Jan,

I guess the question is really what definition of Ego is used here.
After reading your post I decided to do some minor research on the
word. There are several definitions listed in the Encarta, one of
which actually surprised me in its wording. Apparently, the
definition depends on the subject.

1. Appropriate self-esteem - "somebody's idea of his or her own
importance or worth, usually of an appropriate level"
2. Inflated opinion of yourself - "an exaggerated sense of your own
importance and a feeling of superiority to other people"
3. Part of the mind containing consciousness - "psychoanalysis - in
Freudian psychology, one of three main divisions of the mind,
containing consciousness and memory and involved with control,
planning, and conforming to reality"

And the one which surprised me...
4. The self - "philosophy - the individual self, as distinct from the
outside world and other selves"
I thought it was interesting to see a reference to "other selves"
outside the RA material. :)

[Pi]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=PedHnHl_QFHlDgJu8q3inSkSZ3mNsdt8mUvemW TxSLd2v0KdpsP2WdRkrWHANYsYxiQre5QOwP_4mQu7Gpyiaw), Jan wrote:
> I thought I would also look up a word at www.dictionary.com. The
word being self. When I did I found the below:
1. a person or thing referred to with respect to complete
individuality: one's own self.,
2. a person's nature, character, etc.: his better self.
3. personal interest.
4. Philosophy.
a. the ego; that which knows, remembers, desires, suffers, etc., as
contrasted with that known, remembered, etc.
b. the uniting principle, as a soul, underlying all subjective
experience.
>
> I found it interesting that definition #2 talks about the self and
> then definition #4a talks about ego. Also, I found it interesting
> that definition #4a talked about self as that which remembers?which
> to me mean that which knows, is conscious and aware. For me, this
> means that as self (comprised of ego + higher self + unconscious
> self) becomes aware of its other parts/selves, and it has the
> ability to change what it is in this awareness. It is a uniting
> principle (definition #4b), and hence in my mind this means that
> self (which has a component of ego) cannot be separated from the
> whole self.

PI: This post reminded me of "A Prayer for Serenity", which goes
something like this:

"Grant me the serenity to accept things I cannot change.
Grant me the courage to change things I can.
And grant me the wisdom to know the difference.
Grant me the serenity to accept people, places, things, situations,
current events, circumstances, exactly as they are.
Grant me the wisdom to know I can only change one [three] person[s],
And that [they] is [are] me. [MY SELF and I]."

i add words above in brackets to make the prayer more consistent with
the way i feel see think that things are in 3d.

The 'me' is the one others think i am. Maybe 'they' like 'me';
maybe 'they' want 'me' to change & be a different way or 'me'. Me is
a person or thing referred to with respect to complete individuality
in the above definition.

The 'i' is one i think i REALLY am. It's the 'me' who others think i
am PLUS the ideas i have that i don't always share with others --it's
the hidden agendas, the dreams i don't share or want others to know,
& the pains & the pleasures i experience consciously & unconsciously
that direct thoughts and actions and plans i choose for the path i
will follow on the trip i am taking in 3d, the way one might use maps
and traffic lights and highway signs for directions on a trip. In the
above definition, I is the one which knows, remembers, desires,
suffers, etc., as contrasted with that known, remembered, etc.

The 'self' is the ONE I AM. It's the me as seen in violet ray, the i
with shadows that i cast as i walk toward / away from light, plus the
highest self that communes as Co-Creator. In the above definition, my
self is the uniting principle, as a soul, underlying all subjective
experience.

i am reluctant to use the term "ego" in relation to LoO. Ra advised:

QUESTIONER: How can we balance the ego?
RA: We cannot work with this concept [the ego], as it is misapplied
and understanding cannot come from it. {v. I}

Peace & Love, pi

[James Stephens]

Hi Jan,

It just goes to show how poorly communication works it this 3rd
density quagmire. Do we ever really understand what someone is saying?
There are so many different meanings for all but the simplest words it
is really impossible to say anything and be assured of the
understanding on the other end, especially in the written word where
we have no body language to read and oft times miss the subtleties of
vocal infliction etc. It's a wonder any of us survive it at all. :)

Peace and Light,

Jim Stephens

[jess9dob]

In a message dated 9/24/06 2:12:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jpstephenslives@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=bV6p7Max2RkY33D4PkLsOiYszkX5YL0DufdO1c CWhhQSFOg0uYYtyz3Nxc0qFyGmPTcUnoGchRxKHXxeHHkQXH5T hYum) writes:

> It just goes to show how poorly communication works it this 3rd
> density quagmire. Do we ever really understand what someone is saying?
> There are so many different meanings for all but the simplest words it
> is really impossible to say anything and be assured of the
> understanding on the other end

I agree! I think we need to help draw each others' ideas out with questions
and by paraphrasing (re-stating what was said) rather than just reacting to
what we disagree with of what we think we read/heard. I often wonder whether
our primary concern (in our attempts to communicate) is to understand what each
party says, or just to debate. Are we building concepts together for our
mutual consideration, or are we in competition to decide which idea is better?

Agape,
Don Eli