Learning and book four of the Law of One.

I'm in a bit of a change period. Where I am trying to apply a concept. A spiritual concept. One that I have applied before and has not been successful. To see if I can gain information. To understand things. So I'll make this entry simple. 

So, reading the Law of One then.

In book 4. The Contact talks to the group that it will instruct them on the tarot. The major arcana. This is a teaching process. Not a lecture. So the contact instructs Don to look into the tarot and ask questions based on what he thinks they are trying to express. 

I have often wondered about this. That the readers, have likely not done that same amount of introspection. So what of free will. Are we not having our free will violated by reading the book?

This is not the case. For some reason. I do not know why. But in reading the book the contact is clearly aware of the situation. It states that Don's job is not to create an infallible set of images. But to generally introduce people to the material. Something like that, in session 93 or 94 I think. 

But there may be another way that this works. A theory I was working on, trying to think through a few weeks ago. That I may have hinted to here but I don't think I came out and stated. Is that there is something about the negative that is more objective in a kind of callous way than the positive. The negative, simply adapts in opposition to the positive. Like I previously discussed. If just lies to sabotage the positive. An example is that the liberals used to say for years "keep religion out of schools". Then when that was done. They are adding Islam into schools. Prayer days and such in UK schools. 

The negative is also very grounded. Very obsessed with the result in the physical world. It appears in many ways to be able to give the best result. Whereas, the positive often has to explain a whole lot of abstract and long term thinking in order to make its case.  

I played with the idea, but like I said. Can't really do anything with it. It is kind of vague. There is no POINT to it. In a sense. But then I saw this quote:

Questioner: There seems to be no large hint of polarity in this drawing except for the possible coloration of the many cups in the wheel. Part of them are colored black and part of the cup is white. Would this indicate that each experience has within it a possible negative or positive use of that experience that is randomly generated by this seeming wheel of fortune?

Ra: I am Ra. Your supposition is thoughtful. However, it is based upon an addition to the concept complex which is astrological in origin. Therefore, we request that you retain the concept of polarity but release the cups from their strictured form. The element you deal with is not in motion in its original form but is indeed the abiding sun which, from the spirit, shines in protection over all catalyst available from the beginning of complexity to the discerning mind/body/spirit complex.

Indeed you may, rather, find polarity expressed, firstly, by the many opportunities offered in the material illusion which is imaged by the not-white and not-dark square upon which the entity of the image is seated, secondly, upon the position of that seated entity. It does not meet opportunity straight on but glances off to one side or another. In the image you will note a suggestion that the offering of the illusion will often seem to suggest the opportunities lying upon the left-hand path or, as you might refer to it more simply, the service-to-self path. This is a portion of the nature of the Catalyst of the Mind.

My emphasis. 

It really gives me a place to put that insight. In a sense.  

This answer here, also seems to feed a little into the post I had two days ago. Not conclusively. But it is interesting:

Questioner: I was just wondering if the transparency of the garment on the third card indicates the semi-permeable nature of the veil between conscious and subconscious?

Ra: I am Ra. This is a thoughtful perception and cannot be said to be incorrect. However, the intended suggestion, in general, is an echo of our earlier suggestion that the nature of catalyst is that of the unconscious; that is, outward catalyst comes through the veil.

All that you perceive seems to be consciously perceived. This is not the correct supposition. All that you perceive is perceived as catalyst unconsciously. By the, shall we say, time that the mind begins its appreciation of catalyst, that catalyst has been filtered through the veil and in some cases much is veiled in the most apparently clear perception.

To me. I am wondering if I am thinking these things over. So in a sense. I have requested the teaching. It also makes me wonder about my thinking in general. This whole thing was semi profound, religious even. My thoughts came first and the quotes came afterward. I have read these books fully when I was younger, about twenty years ago. So it can be explained by the subconscious. 

But if thoughts are kind of structured or guided like that. A lot of my thoughts might be relevant. Leading somewhere. So to speak.