About the Fellowship of the Cosmic Mind

[Laura]

Send me the agreed upon correction in an email, and exactly what it is supposed to replace so I can get it done efficiently.

[Jason (ocean59)]

Send me the agreed upon correction in an email, and exactly what it is supposed to replace so I can get it done efficiently.

Daenerys, The Spoon, and I have agreed upon and sent the following proposed change to you via e-mail.

As Second Density expresses the variations of Archetypes in genetic forms, therefore our instinctive-emotional substrate holds the roots of human evil.

Removing the word 'therefore' (redundancy) and changing 'roots' to singular (readability/accuracy).

[Laura]

Thanks.  Change has been implemented by Mr. Scott!

[ROEL]

Thanks.  Change has been implemented by Mr. Scott!

Thank you all. It is smooth reading now when I get to this rephrased sentence. And thank you SeekinTruth for your "Yesterday at 06:38:14 PM" explanation.

One more thing:

Under 6.6. in the second (long) paragraph there is twice the need to insert a "the" between "of Cosmic".

Cheers.

[ROEL]

Here I am again, pestering you guys...

Under 2.5. close to the end of the first paragraph: "In this context, we recognize that given tacit acceptance to..."

Should it be "giving" instead of "given"?

Under 1.0. in the Abstract, "Recognition of that which is Good and which is Evil requires a sufficient..."

Here I could well read "of that which is Good and Evil", and I believe that it is not the intended meaning.

Should it be changed to "that which is Good and that which is Evil"?

Us non-native speakers can easily stumble if it is left unchanged.   

[Approaching Infinity]

Under 2.5. close to the end of the first paragraph: "In this context, we recognize that given tacit acceptance to..."

Should it be "giving" instead of "given"?

Yep, this should be 'giving'.

Under 1.0. in the Abstract, "Recognition of that which is Good and which is Evil requires a sufficient..."

Here I could well read "of that which is Good and Evil", and I believe that it is not the intended meaning.

Should it be changed to "that which is Good and that which is Evil"?

I think that is the best option.

[Jason (ocean59)]

I've gone ahead and sent an additional e-mail to Laura with those changes:

Recognition of that which is Good and that which is Evil requires a sufficient development of Spirit, Knowledge, and also the Third Force, which may also be called Grace – the ability to discern which is which depending on the context.

In this context, we recognize that given giving tacit acceptance to Evil and Destruction at the level of  Third Density, claiming  that this is justified because “All is One”,

(It is not necessary to be a formal member of the Fellowship of the Cosmic Mind to put as many or as few of these core ideas as one wishes into practice.)

and further down in the same paragraph:

The Fellowship of the Cosmic Mind structures its communities as an extension of the family unit and welcomes the involvement of family members to whatever degree they are comfortable and willing.

Words in green to be added, and in red to be removed.

[ROEL]

Tank you both, Approaching Infinity and Jason.

And now, a tough one (at least for me):

Under 1.0. in the Abstract, we can read, right before the explanation of the meaning of Consciouness:

"At any given moment only the Probabilities of any given Truth can be ascertained.
These probabilities, like the Truth they concern, are objective though not quantifiable."

My comment: If the probability can be known with certainty (ascertained), it should be quantifiable, since its expression is a ratio (the ratio of the number of actual occurrences to the total number of possible occurrences). If not, the probability is subjective.   

[3D Student]

"At any given moment only the Probabilities of any given Truth can be ascertained.
These probabilities, like the Truth they concern, are objective though not quantifiable."

My comment: If the probability can be known with certainty (ascertained), it should be quantifiable, since its expression is a ratio (the ratio of the number of actual occurrences to the total number of possible occurrences). If not, the probability is subjective.   

I think it's simply saying that there are multiple probabilities of any given Truth. And that we can not quite pinpoint with certainty the Truth as we are now, hence the non-quantifiable nature of them.

[ROEL]

"At any given moment only the Probabilities of any given Truth can be ascertained.
These probabilities, like the Truth they concern, are objective though not quantifiable."

My comment: If the probability can be known with certainty (ascertained), it should be quantifiable, since its expression is a ratio (the ratio of the number of actual occurrences to the total number of possible occurrences). If not, the probability is subjective.   

I think it's simply saying that there are multiple probabilities of any given Truth. And that we can not quite pinpoint with certainty the Truth as we are now, hence the non-quantifiable nature of them.

Well, 3D Student, if this is the intended meaning, then maybe it would be simpler to put it the way you expressed it. But I continue to struggle with what seems a contradiction: If we say ascertained (with certainty), then we are saying quantifiable.

[Palinurus]

But I continue to struggle with what seems a contradiction: If we say ascertained (with certainty), then we are saying quantifiable.

Hi ROEL,
I tend to agree with your line of reasoning. Would this rephrasing do the trick for you?

At any given moment only the Probabilities of any given Truth can be estimated, with varying degrees of certainty.
These probabilities, like the Truth they concern, are objective though not outright quantifiable

Just a thought. fwiw.

[Buddy]

But I continue to struggle with what seems a contradiction: If we say ascertained (with certainty), then we are saying quantifiable.

Hi ROEL,
I tend to agree with your line of reasoning. Would this rephrasing do the trick for you?

At any given moment only the Probabilities of any given Truth can be estimated, with varying degrees of certainty.
These probabilities, like the Truth they concern, are objective though not outright quantifiable

Just a thought. fwiw.

Good points from both of you, I think. From my perspective of classical probability theory, ROEL seems right on the mark. I choose to interpret esoterically, or quantum-gnostically. Meaning that, to me, probabilities are 'likelihood omni(di)stributings in (aggregate Hilbert) space(s). It's like being certain that there is a 'range' and that there is something within that range that will happen, but exactly what will happen is (Heisenberg-ean) uncertain at the present time.

Classical cause-effect is passé from where I stand, but there do seem to be outcomes that favor definite preconditions.

[ROEL]

But I continue to struggle with what seems a contradiction: If we say ascertained (with certainty), then we are saying quantifiable.

Hi ROEL,
I tend to agree with your line of reasoning. Would this rephrasing do the trick for you?

At any given moment only the Probabilities of any given Truth can be estimated, with varying degrees of certainty.
These probabilities, like the Truth they concern, are objective though not outright quantifiable

Just a thought. fwiw.

Yes!!! and thanks for the reply.   

[ROEL]

It's like being certain that there is a 'range' and that there is something within that range that will happen, but exactly what will happen is (Heisenberg-ean) uncertain at the present time.
Classical cause-effect is passé from where I stand, but there do seem to be outcomes that favor definite preconditions.

Thanks, Buddy. Think I understand what you explain. At the same time, I feel more identified with Palinarus' rephrasing maybe because I am a Taurus, very earthbound, classical thinking type. This includes my difficulty understanding quantum physics. 
But foremost, I treasure the Declaration of Principles of the Fellowship. It has its own private spot on my night table.

[Palinurus]

ROEL, it might promote your understanding of both ways of thinking by realizing that Buddy and I both say roughly the same, but from a different angle and in different wordings. Mine refer mainly to the state of affairs as they stand factually, while Buddy's approach concentrates on the dynamics of the process of delivery of that resulting situation.

Hope this helps a bit.