Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

A place to talk about Bashar's teachings and anything you feel is relevant to it.

Moderators: Rokazulu, xplosiw, Alice

TheInventor
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:40 am

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Post by TheInventor » Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:15 am

And Rejection is te property of Negative Ego running amok, since posting the correct method of creation described by bashar, as the claims of the 5th law changing the other 4 laws is incorrect.

"I see a contradiction in the last (5th) law, which states that "Everything changes except the first four laws."

Why is the 5th law not included as an unchangeable law? As presently written, the 5th law states that it itself is included in the "everything changes" category. And if the 5th law can change, that means it could change into the following laws, for example-

a) Everthing changes, including the first four laws.

b) Most things change, but not the first four laws and the eternal forced upgrades of Microsoft software.

c) Everthing changes, except when they don't.


Why doesn't Bashar simply state the the 5th law as "Everything changes, except these five laws"....?"

hopefull this diagram is read by sombody and give a "I didn't knw that statement....which is something that I dont see oftem/

PianoMastR64
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:46 am

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Post by PianoMastR64 » Sun Jan 07, 2018 3:00 pm

Alice wrote:I am not saying your position is wrong, but I guess I just don't have the mental energy to keep up with all your postings on the subject.
Well, that's fair I guess. I haven't really been saying anything new though. I wrote that one long explanation, which disappeared into the ether, and then a series of postings afterwards to try and explain it in as many ways as I can. I finally mustered the will to sorta rewrite it. So that's sorta where I'm at. I have nothing against you. I'm not sure if I gave that impression or not.

PianoMastR64
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:46 am

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Post by PianoMastR64 » Sun Jan 07, 2018 4:23 pm

TheInventor wrote:
PianoMastR64 wrote:I decided to go back to the beginning, and discovered that this mystery was actually answered correctly by kings.tse in the first response. Man, this thread feels like it's been going on forever. (I'm having fun though btw. I'd love for it to keep going so everyone has a chance to have their understanding expended by participating.) I know I read it, but it didn't stick with me because I didn't quite yet understand what it actually means for the 5th Law to change. It's not the wording of the 5th law as the wording doesn't fundamentally matter. The universe isn't held together by english semantics.
1. You exist…you always have and you always will. You are eternal.
2. Everything is here and now.
3. The One is the All and the All is the One.
4. What you put out is what you get back.
5. Everything changes except for the first four…..


The 5th law is a shifting of perspectives from your point of view.

1. You exist…you always have and you always will. You are eternal. (This is your consciousness your being self aware.)

2. Everything is here and now. ( the infinte stati universes, in fixed patterns)

3. The One is the All and the All is the One. (everything is created and contained within (all that is..with nothing is part of it)

4. What you put out is what you get back. (the property of energy,vibration,frequency of your consciousness, you have to change yourself to experience something different, you cannot experience anything else without change)

5. Everything changes except for the first four…..(you are in a constant state of change, if you did not change you would not perceive anything new, anything different) this is a change of perception, you are not changing the fact that 1. you exist, 2. everything is here and now 3. the all is the one and the one is the all 4. what you put out you get back) you cannot change those things, the 5th law does not change those things, you shift your perspective all the time, creating changes of perspective.
PianoMastR64 wrote:1. That which exists cannot become that which does not exist as nonexistence doesn't exist.
No. Bashar has said that non-existence is full. Non-existence or nothing is from which the universes is created from. nothing is part of all that is it is not part of the universes that you can I exist in. because the only thing that is full (all the time is consciousness), and the only consciousness that can contain nothing is the source or "all that is"
PianoMastR64 wrote:2. There is only here and now as there and then are mere persistent illusions.
"there and then" do exist in parrall realities, they may and may not exist in your reality at the moment, please reread explaination of virtual time and what is virtual particles in this thread. as in my Private Session, they are full of physics questions; and I get my info from Bashar in these things.
PianoMastR64 wrote:3. There is no separation between the collective and the individual as all are one.
Seperation between thecollective and the individual is really how you define seperation and at what level of consciousness. at the ultimate perspective of all that is, yes there is no seperation as you describe, however at a different level of vibration and frequency and patterns of consciences there is seperation of those perspectives.
PianoMastR64 wrote:4. What you experience isn't anything more than a reflection of yourself.
No, you percieve are reflections of your own conscienessess bubble, howeve you also percieve "others in your version of them" The Mechanic of Channelling Handout show how sympathic vibrations, frequemcy, patterns are imprinted on your perception bubble, it can be aside or superimposed of your own refelction of yourself. You experience is a reflection of yourself, a harmonic imprint of other bubble on your bubble...propertiy of sympathic vibrations and pattern matching creates the perception of others.
PianoMastR64 wrote:"""""""" 5. Everything changes except the first 4 laws. Law 1 cannot become "you don't exist" as such a law applies to nothing. Law 1 refers to everything that exists. It cannot change into a law that refers to everything that doesn't exist. Such a law wouldn't actually be a law since it isn't a universal constancy for all of creation. It isn't even true for a single thing ever, let alone 4 things. The same goes for laws 2, 3, and 4. Curiously the same does not go for 5. I wonder why. Well here's why: The 5th law can change, but what does it change into? It's simply a finger that points to everything in all of creation that can change, which is almost all with the exception of 4 specific things. Imagine the 4 laws are in box 1. Everything else is in box 2. The 5th law points its finger at box 2, but it can change to point to box 1. If you were to describe what the 5th law says after it points to box 1, you would have to just read out the first 4 laws.
again your usage of change is why I keep telling you its a percpective of changes, therefore you cannot change the first 4 laws via the 5th law, so its not a contrdiction of the 1st four laws.
PianoMastR64 wrote:Am I super duper clear now? I hope so. I'm trying really really hard to at least get someone to acknowledge that what I'm saying makes sense. I mean what I REALLY wanted was for people to just understand what I'm talking about, then have a discussion about it. It seems we haven't gotten past the part where this idea is taken literally and seriously so we can move on to discussing the possibilities. That's really what I'm desperately hoping for. It IS the purpose of this specific thread after all.

"The only thing that wasn't explained by Bashar when I read his explanation was, how does having essentially 2 copies of the first 4 laws imply a 5th law that states everything changes except the first 4? I have a proposal. Perhaps with no law to state that anything changes or doesn't change, the mere presence of the 4 laws, being LAWS that inherently don't change, implies that the rest of creation does. This, by logical consequence, becomes a law. This last law seems a necessary addition no matter how many laws you have. Perhaps this infinite cycle is perfect because it almost implies a 6th law that states something to the effect of "everything operates in cycles". A lot of enlightened channeled entities have told us that the wave is the basis for the fabric of our reality. A wave is a cycle. Just something to chew on. :)

Just some more thoughts... Perhaps it's important that the 5th law still exists, even if it's changed into the first 4. The law that everything exists (since laws apply to other laws) applies to the 5th law. It can change, but it cannot not exist. Maybe it's less that there are 2 copies, and more that the 5th law becomes a reflection of the first 4. both exist, but there is only one set of the first 4 laws. The all are the one and the one is the all applies here. in fact... if you guys are willing to take this seriously then we could have a very lively and interesting discussion about how all 5 laws apply to all other 5. If the 5 laws are the fundamental underpinnings of everything we know and love, then maybe it's the Laws' interaction with each other that manifests it all.""""""""""""
All this appears to me a a fractal argument.
Fractal Arguements.jpg
Your creating Fractal Logic Loops, because the claim of "5th law changes the other 4 laws is incorrect" this is represented by the 1st and largest is a black loop, then because the EGO doesnt like to be wrong, it creates a 2nd argument a red loop, then if that argument does not create the desired outcome then a 3rd argument loop a blue loop is created, then another loop represented by yellow logic loop.

because all those additional argument loops are nested insside the original black loop, the person now insists that all the loops be proven incorrect the black, red, blue and yellow logic loops in order for the 1st orginal arguement to be proven incorrect. Then what happens is that if any of the logic loops are not proven incorrect or accepted incorrect by the person being incorrect; they get to insist that they are still correct.

when a person is doing these additinal logic loops in order to prove that their claim is correct...yours is not; that tells you alot about the person, hopefully you get the principle of energy exertion, they more you argue to prove your point, the more likly you are incorrect. as truth is a positive action, it self collects to a point, not-truth is a negative actions is seperates and pushes apart of itelf. therefore if you have a negative believe, you have to apply more energy to have it collect to a point to seem, to emulate being correct.

I do understand that you probably dont have access all information presented by Bashar, because you are asking questions.
Something tells me you didn't preview this before posting it. Thanks Alice for trying to fix it, but you didn't quite hit the mark.
TheInventor wrote:5. Everything changes except for the first four…..(you are in a constant state of change, if you did not change you would not perceive anything new, anything different) this is a change of perception, you are not changing the fact that 1. you exist, 2. everything is here and now 3. the all is the one and the one is the all 4. what you put out you get back) you cannot change those things, the 5th law does not change those things, you shift your perspective all the time, creating changes of perspective.
You continue to completely disregard that the 5th law is pretty obviously stated to apply to itself. You also keep thinking I'm saying the 5th law somehow does apply to the first 4. You're missing the point completely of what I've been trying to say this whole time. I understand that the 5th law is a change in perspective/perception and that it doesn't change the first 4 laws. It does change the 5th law though. Isn't that peculiar? That's what I'm trying to explore.
TheInventor wrote:No. Bashar has said that non-existence is full. Non-existence or nothing is from which the universes is created from. nothing is part of all that is it is not part of the universes that you can I exist in. because the only thing that is full (all the time is consciousness), and the only consciousness that can contain nothing is the source or "all that is"
We're in agreement on all of this. I don't know why you said no. I reworded that law so it describes what can't happen as opposed to what always happens. "That which exists cannot become that which does not exist" There's no room for disagreement here if you claim to have such a comprehensive understanding of Bashar's teachings. "nonexistence doesn't exist" This is something I've heard Bashar say. I'm beginning to suspect that you are in fact just looking for things I say to point out as wrong and are not interested in actual constructive discussion.
TheInventor wrote:"there and then" do exist in parrall realities, they may and may not exist in your reality at the moment, please reread explaination of virtual time and what is virtual particles in this thread. as in my Private Session, they are full of physics questions; and I get my info from Bashar in these things.
We're still in agreement. My rewording of at least the first 4 laws really weren't meant to be disagreed with or even commented on. They're very simple alternate angles of what was already clearly stated by you and Bashar for the purpose of making the point that you're completely missing more clear.
TheInventor wrote:Seperation between thecollective and the individual is really how you define seperation and at what level of consciousness. at the ultimate perspective of all that is, yes there is no seperation as you describe, however at a different level of vibration and frequency and patterns of consciences there is seperation of those perspectives.
Yes.
TheInventor wrote:No, you percieve are reflections of your own conscienessess bubble, howeve you also percieve "others in your version of them" The Mechanic of Channelling Handout show how sympathic vibrations, frequemcy, patterns are imprinted on your perception bubble, it can be aside or superimposed of your own refelction of yourself. You experience is a reflection of yourself, a harmonic imprint of other bubble on your bubble...propertiy of sympathic vibrations and pattern matching creates the perception of others.
You're just expanding on what I said to make it more clear. You didn't really disagree with me. Don't forget it's this and that. Everything you experience is nothing but your own reflection, and yet there are other consciousnesses out there with whom you can interact via your own reflection. You're trying really hard to disagree with every little point I make.
TheInventor wrote:again your usage of change is why I keep telling you its a percpective of changes, therefore you cannot change the first 4 laws via the 5th law, so its not a contrdiction of the 1st four laws.
AHHHH!!! ...sigh. Ok so You probably haven't gotten to the point yet where I stated very explicitly that you're very wrong in your understanding of what I'm saying, so I'll let this one go for now. Although... wait so the 5th law is now a contradiction of the first 4 laws according to me apparently? How are you coming up with these things?

I'm sorry, but I'm going to disregard everything you're saying about fractal loops or whatever because it's based on a misunderstanding of what I said.

PianoMastR64
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:46 am

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Post by PianoMastR64 » Sun Jan 07, 2018 4:40 pm

TheInventor wrote:as the claims of the 5th law changing the other 4 laws is incorrect.
Ok Never mind. You didn't once acknowledge that your persistent assumption that I'm claiming the 5th law changes the first 4 is completely wrong. This is pretty much on you now. You have to go back and reread what I've written so far with the knowledge that nowhere am I claiming the 5th law changes the first 4 if you want to understand what I'm saying. I've reworded it so many times.

Ok, let's switch it up a little. Please describe as comprehensively as you can exactly what you think I'm saying. Say it as though I'm saying it to you. I'm going to point out where you're right and where you're wrong for the purpose of hopefully getting us on the same page.

TheInventor
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:40 am

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Post by TheInventor » Mon Jan 08, 2018 1:40 am

You wrote PianoMastR64 is this most recent comment
"Ok Never mind. You didn't once acknowledge that your persistent assumption that I'm claiming the 5th law changes the first 4 is completely wrong."

You wrote PianoMastR64 is this comment
"The fifth law, which states that "everything changes except the first four laws", when changed, becomes the first four. "

the context of this comment

The fifth law, which states that "everything changes except the first four laws", when changed, becomes the first four. It changes to refer from what changes to what doesn't change which are the other laws the fifth says don't change. Since the laws are just references to constancies of reality, it's the reference that changes, not the wording of the law itself. When the fifth law is the first four, then it's basically just a redundancy of the first four. However, when you have just the first four laws, it's implied that everything changes because the four laws are there to specifically state what of all of creation doesn't change. Thus a fifth law is logically consequenced that states that "everything changes except the first four laws". But when you have a law that tells you what does change, it's no longer assumed that everything changes, otherwise, you wouldn't need a law to state it. so the fifth law can and does change.

You wrote PianoMastR64 is this comment

When the fifth law is the first four, then it's basically just a redundancy of the first four. However, when you have just the first four laws, it's implied that everything changes because the four laws are there to specifically state what of all of creation doesn't change.

Which is incorrect, the 5th law is never the first 4 laws.

You older claim of

http://newdimensionsmediagroup.com/bashar-the-5th-law/

PianoMastR64 on January 23, 2014 at 4:43 pm said

I have a problem with the last law, the law that states “Everything
changes, except for the [previous] laws.” I believe it should instead be
stated “Everything changes, except for the laws of creation.” This is the
reason why: If everything in creation is subject to change, except for the
*previous* laws, then that means the law that states “Everything changes,
except for the [previous] laws.” is subject to change. This means if there
were four laws, the first three cannot change, and the fourth law can
change. If there were five laws, the first four cannot change, and the
fifth law can change. Why is the law that states that “Everything changes
except for the [previous] laws” allowed to change? If the last law is able
to change, then that must mean there is an alternate law that it is allowed
to change into. What *could* it logically change into? Could it change into
a law that states “Nothing changes except for the last law”? The reason it
makes no sense for that law to be allowed to change is because it’s a law.
If a law of creation was allowed to change, it wouldn’t be a law, it would
be a temporary parameter.

For example, the first law simply states “You exist.” In both the 4-law and
5-law configurations there is the law that states “Everything is here and
now.” (In the 4-law config, it’s implied.) If everything is here and now,
including what we perceive to be the future (future falls under the
category of “everything”), and since “You exist.” is present tense, thus
occurring now, then it is logically impossible for “you” to exist in the
present, and to not exist in the future because that would result in “you”
both existing and not existing simultaneously. Therefore, the law “You
Exist.” cannot change, which is why it’s a law.

It’s true that my prior logic depends upon the fact that the law or law
extension “Everything is here and now.” is true. I’m going to assume it’s
true. My point though is that laws cannot change.

I wish someone would bring that up to Bashar to see how he responds.""

this illustrates your misunderstanding of what "change" is, it is not a physical change, its a percpective change.

You wrote PianoMastR64 is this comment
":Thus a fifth law is logically consequenced that states that "everything changes except the first four laws". But when you have a law that tells you what does change, it's no longer assumed that everything changes, otherwise, you wouldn't need a law to state it. so the fifth law can and does change. The catch is that it always changes back to itself."

this again is your misconception of your claim that the 5th law is a physical change, that is changes back to itself.

You wrote PianoMastR64 is this comment
You have to go back and reread what I've written so far with the knowledge that nowhere am I claiming the 5th law changes the first 4 if you want to understand what I'm saying. I've reworded it so many times.

"The fifth law, which states that "everything changes except the first four laws", when changed, becomes the first four. It changes to refer from what changes to what doesn't change which are the other laws the fifth says don't change." There you go........

One more thing
all that is.jpg
all that is.jpg (136.92 KiB) Viewed 563 times
Here is what I understand, and I am quoting Bashar.

TheInventor
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:40 am

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Post by TheInventor » Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:51 am

ughh..double post
Last edited by TheInventor on Mon Jan 08, 2018 7:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

TheInventor
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:40 am

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Post by TheInventor » Mon Jan 08, 2018 7:50 pm

how I got a double post?....

TheInventor
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:40 am

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Post by TheInventor » Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:24 am

PianoMastR64........I have posted your claims how the 5th law cycles back into the other four laws; and of course I have seen no acknowledgement by you. I fully expected it. afterall rejection of facts is a trait of Neg Ego. So its either you have no posted a response yet, or will not do so. If you don't provide a respomse...then its a consession that I am correct. (when you leave a podium during a debate...you lose and also failed to prove your poiny).

TheInventor
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:40 am

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Post by TheInventor » Mon Jan 15, 2018 12:43 am

PianoMastR64.......Whatttt???....No Response after I presented evidence (that you challenged me to produce). Well I have; why no response? I claim that you refuse to admit that I validated my counter claims. Ohhh I will keep commenting.

User avatar
Arouet
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:11 pm

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Post by Arouet » Mon Jan 15, 2018 6:27 am

TheInventor wrote:PianoMastR64.......Whatttt???....No Response after I presented evidence (that you challenged me to produce). Well I have; why no response? I claim that you refuse to admit that I validated my counter claims. Ohhh I will keep commenting.
Do0d, you have been at this for a week. Consider STFU.
I AM a Precursor!

TheInventor
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:40 am

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Post by TheInventor » Mon Jan 15, 2018 1:49 pm

Do0d, you have been at this for a week. Consider STFU.
OHFKNO

TheInventor
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:40 am

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Post by TheInventor » Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:13 pm

All my effort to prove my point, not a thank you or acknowledgemrnt from PianoMastR64. well no reply is a admission of being incorrect. Bashar often says Silence means NO.

User avatar
Alice
Posts: 1904
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 9:30 pm

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Post by Alice » Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:17 pm

TheInventor wrote:All my effort to prove my point, not a thank you or acknowledgemrnt from PianoMastR64. well no reply is a admission of being incorrect. Bashar often says Silence means NO.
It is still difficult to discern who is saying what, in your posts, because of the quoting issue. Maybe you could try bolding the other person's words? Anyway I hope you find a way that works for you.

I edited your riff on the Five Absolutes and shared at another forum, people were appreciative. So thank you.
1. You exist…you always have and you always will. You are eternal.

Consciousness is self awareness, and you are a spark of All
That Is, therefore you are immortal, you cannot be destroyed.
Because you have Consciousness, you can transpose Space/Time upon a static structure of Space/Time that already exists. Bashar has said many times "Space/Time is much more malleable than you think." I have said the Universe that is Virtual to you, does not contain your own space/time imprint. It is virtual and does not "exist" in your perspective. When you impose your Consciousness on that Virtual Space/Time you are changing your perspective of the universe, then it becomes real to you. Because you are a part of All That Is, you have the properties of All That Is.

2. Everything is here and now.

Because the Prime Radiant is outside space/time, the laws of space and time do not apply, The Prime Radiant is infinite velocity and infinite time. This is why everything in the universe is here and now, it's created all at once.

3. The One is the All and the All is the One.

The One is "All That Is" AKA Prime Radiant,AKA Infinite Particle, creates everything; there is "Nothing Else"

4. What you put out is what you get back.

Because the Universe is all that is, and you are part of all that is. your Consciousness has a property of vibration, frequency, pattern...this is a type of field that only can perceive vibration... you cannot perceive anything outside of vibration, frequency, pattern. In order to see other parts of the universe, you have to change your Consciousness to that part of the universe. I have posted Polaroids of the two human fields Bashar has described, the human bias field...which show that I am a neutral perceiver of reality. it's perfectly level in the Polaroids, which is amazing because Bashar says most humans shift quite a lot. the other field is the physical mind field.

Because your frequency is shifting in a region of frequencies, Bashar has said that human masters are at 240khz (from memory ...might be off) down to 140khz frequency, there is by nature a shifting of frequencies all the time, in fact the rate of switching is 1x10^-43 sec rate.
so you can only get "back" what you are currently putting out.

5. Everything changes except for the first four…..Star Wars (The Last Jedi Spolier) doesn't change the movie...really.

This 5th law is a perspective law, its not a physical static law at all. it describes that your perspective is always changing from moment to moment in the infinite pattern of all that is, of all infinite universes. you are literally in a hall of mirrors, which you only see one mirror at a time. in the new Star Wars, Rey is in a infinite reflecting mirror showing changes occurring. in the end, the person in the reflection is herself (when she was looking for her parents) This is a great example of the perspective shifting and the infinite but slightly different universes that exist.

TheInventor
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:40 am

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Post by TheInventor » Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:02 am

Well I did work on the Pic, and while this quoting stuff? I did stop using quoting function. just did it the hard way. so bolding thr words is next step. PianoMastR64 did understand what was written, what I dont see written in numerous comments throughout the forum is "I didnt know that"

PianoMastR64
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:46 am

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Post by PianoMastR64 » Sat Jan 27, 2018 9:19 am

TheInventor wrote:PianoMastR64.......Whatttt???....No Response after I presented evidence (that you challenged me to produce). Well I have; why no response? I claim that you refuse to admit that I validated my counter claims. Ohhh I will keep commenting.
Calm down. lol. I have more going on in my life than this Bashar thread.

Give me a minute...

PianoMastR64
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:46 am

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Post by PianoMastR64 » Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:11 am

TheInventor wrote: You wrote PianoMastR64 is this comment

When the fifth law is the first four, then it's basically just a redundancy of the first four. However, when you have just the first four laws, it's implied that everything changes because the four laws are there to specifically state what of all of creation doesn't change.

Which is incorrect, the 5th law is never the first 4 laws.
This is not incorrect. This is something I heard Bashar himself say when presented with this seeming contradiction. I once had a link directly to a transcript of Bashar saying exactly what I'm saying, but that's in one of the posts made by my old account which is now lost to the void. I also unfortunately didn't save the link and am unable to find it again. One day, when I feel like purchasing what's probably the relevant session, I'll find it and quote it personally and post it here. I'll give the session title and timestamp.

I'm a bit unclear what your understanding is of "the 5th law is the first 4 laws". The 5th law becomes the first four when it changes. It's really simple. The 5th law can and does change because the first 4 can't. The 5th law refers to everything that changes. When it itself changes, it then refers to everything that doesn't change. There are only 4 things in creation that don't change. You know what those 4 things are. when I state it like that, it's undeniably exactly what Bashar said. My explanation of the lone first 4 laws spawning the fifth is where I deviate a little bit in interpreting what he said. I'm pretty sure he said something about the laws cyclically switching between 4 and 5, but I don't remember perfectly. I promise, I'll bring back that evidence of him saying these things. Maybe if you see it coming from Bashar, you'll believe me.

There's really no point in bringing up something I said 4 years ago. My understanding has improved a lot since then.
TheInventor wrote: You wrote PianoMastR64 is this comment
":Thus a fifth law is logically consequenced that states that "everything changes except the first four laws". But when you have a law that tells you what does change, it's no longer assumed that everything changes, otherwise, you wouldn't need a law to state it. so the fifth law can and does change. The catch is that it always changes back to itself."

this again is your misconception of your claim that the 5th law is a physical change, that is changes back to itself.
I feel like my trump card continues to be that what I'm saying is basically just a logical expansion on what Bashar said.

That graphic is a total confusing mess without context and explanation. I'm assuming it's explained in that book you've referred to, which I'm totally interested in, but I really don't think it successfully disagrees with what I'm saying. I'm barely even claiming anything; I'm just sharing my understanding.
TheInventor wrote: Here is what I understand, and I am quoting Bashar.
You in no way demonstrated your understanding of what I've said. You did the most unhelpful parts of exactly what you've been doing, namely quote me then tell me I'm wrong. Tell me what your actual understanding is. For example, you told me you think I'm saying the 5th law changes the first 4. That's not even close to what I'm saying, but that does get me closer to knowing how I'm being received. What else do you think I'm saying? Tell me what I'm saying as though you're me.

PianoMastR64
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:46 am

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Post by PianoMastR64 » Sat Jan 27, 2018 11:19 am

TheInventor wrote:PianoMastR64........I have posted your claims how the 5th law cycles back into the other four laws; and of course I have seen no acknowledgement by you. I fully expected it. afterall rejection of facts is a trait of Neg Ego. So its either you have no posted a response yet, or will not do so. If you don't provide a respomse...then its a consession that I am correct. (when you leave a podium during a debate...you lose and also failed to prove your poiny).
Well shit then. lol I didn't know this was a contest. That's your problem right there. You're treating this discussion like the concept of a "winner" and "loser" should be entertained in the slightest. Every single one of your responses has been nothing but the effort to tell me how wrong I am. How about agreeing with me on at least one thing for a change? Perhaps you should check your own ego. "I fully expected it." You fully expected me to lose? ...to get scared and run off because big bad you proved me wrong and I couldn't handle it? Seriously, examine your own negative ego, because "I fully expected it" just sounds like an unnecessarily harsh jab at me. How does it make sense at all that me not responding means that you're correct? Is that really all it takes for you to feel like you're right? Are you sure you don't regret typing all of this, because it's very mean and arrogant. Read it again.

Please let this stop being a debate and start letting it be a discussion. We are getting nowhere with you taking every single point I make and telling me how it's wrong. It seems like from the get go, you've already accepted that I'm wrong, and you're just taking every response of mine as your chance to explain why I'm wrong and nothing else. Why don't you try "Hm, that's interesting. Are you meaning to say that [blank]" on for size? I think it would look nice on you. "You're wrong and here's why" is so last season. It's so bad that you're telling yourself that I lost because the conversation has a lull in it. "failed to prove your poin[t]" I don't want to have a debate where I have to prove anything. That's such a limiting form factor. Do you know how to have a discussion about interesting topics as though you're talking to a friend? That's what I want.

Please don't forget to have fun with this. Don't take it so seriously. Life isn't that serious. Why do you even care about this idea that I lost, and by extension, you won? What do you win? Did you win the feeling that you're smarter than me and just proved it so? Of course you have to make sure everyone else knows this by typing out a whole post saying how much I lost, otherwise they might not have figured it out themselves. lol. I'm just trying to help you see how ridiculous this is. It kinda seems like you're really just highlighting your own fears, otherwise what's the point of dedicating many multiple sentences merely to how I'm conclusively wrong about everything?

This took a very silly turn.

PianoMastR64
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:46 am

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Post by PianoMastR64 » Sat Jan 27, 2018 11:30 am

TheInventor wrote:Well I did work on the Pic, and while this quoting stuff? I did stop using quoting function. just did it the hard way. so bolding thr words is next step. PianoMastR64 did understand what was written, what I dont see written in numerous comments throughout the forum is "I didnt know that"
I'm willing to admit that I could be doing more of that, but I need a sense that you even understand me before I can take your criticisms seriously. With you revealing your lack of understanding by thinking I'm saying "the 5th law changes the first 4" means we haven't even crossed that barrier yet, even with all the words we've exchanged.

You haven't been doing any "I didn't know that" yourself by the way.

TheInventor
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:40 am

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Post by TheInventor » Sun Jan 28, 2018 11:49 am

This is what PianoMastR64 wrote.

":Thus a fifth law is logically consequenced that states that "everything changes except the first four laws". But when you have a law that tells you what does change, it's no longer assumed that everything changes, otherwise, you wouldn't need a law to state it. so the fifth law can and does change. The catch is that it always changes back to itself."

And the notion "Gee I didnt know that" not said by me is deflection of my correct informatioj givin.


This is what PianoMastR64 wrote.
I'm willing to admit that I could be doing more of that, but I need a sense that you even understand me before I can take your criticisms seriously.

No, I do understand completely what your claims are, and how those claims are incorrect, period.

I created that Pic, which is a clear and simple explaining of how the 5th law is not a cycle.

This written by PianoMastR64; Clearly claims a cycle of the 5th law back into the first 4 laws.

The fifth law, which states that "everything changes except the first four laws", when changed, becomes the first four. It changes to refer from what changes to what doesn't change which are the other laws the fifth says don't change. Since the laws are just references to constancies of reality, it's the reference that changes, not the wording of the law itself. When the fifth law is the first four, then it's basically just a redundancy of the first four. However, when you have just the first four laws, it's implied that everything changes because the four laws are there to specifically state what of all of creation doesn't change. Thus a fifth law is logically consequenced that states that "everything changes except the first four laws". But when you have a law that tells you what does change, it's no longer assumed that everything changes, otherwise, you wouldn't need a law to state it. so the fifth law can and does change. The catch is that it always changes back to itself.

My illustration clearly shows no cycle of 5th law back into the first 4 laws.

PianoMastR64
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:46 am

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Post by PianoMastR64 » Mon Jan 29, 2018 2:53 am

TheInventor wrote:This is what PianoMastR64 wrote.

":Thus a fifth law is logically consequenced that states that "everything changes except the first four laws". But when you have a law that tells you what does change, it's no longer assumed that everything changes, otherwise, you wouldn't need a law to state it. so the fifth law can and does change. The catch is that it always changes back to itself."

And the notion "Gee I didnt know that" not said by me is deflection of my correct informatioj givin.


This is what PianoMastR64 wrote.
I'm willing to admit that I could be doing more of that, but I need a sense that you even understand me before I can take your criticisms seriously.

No, I do understand completely what your claims are, and how those claims are incorrect, period.

I created that Pic, which is a clear and simple explaining of how the 5th law is not a cycle.

This written by PianoMastR64; Clearly claims a cycle of the 5th law back into the first 4 laws.

The fifth law, which states that "everything changes except the first four laws", when changed, becomes the first four. It changes to refer from what changes to what doesn't change which are the other laws the fifth says don't change. Since the laws are just references to constancies of reality, it's the reference that changes, not the wording of the law itself. When the fifth law is the first four, then it's basically just a redundancy of the first four. However, when you have just the first four laws, it's implied that everything changes because the four laws are there to specifically state what of all of creation doesn't change. Thus a fifth law is logically consequenced that states that "everything changes except the first four laws". But when you have a law that tells you what does change, it's no longer assumed that everything changes, otherwise, you wouldn't need a law to state it. so the fifth law can and does change. The catch is that it always changes back to itself.

My illustration clearly shows no cycle of 5th law back into the first 4 laws.
How do you not see that this conversation didn't advance a millimeter with this response?

My illustration clearly shows no cycle of 5th law back into the first 4 laws.

No, I don't understand your ms paint scribbles. You can't just say it's clear. you have to make it clear by explaining it. Even if it was perfectly clear even a dog could understand, that doesn't mean it's correct or that it isn't missing information.

And the notion "Gee I didnt know that" not said by me is deflection of my correct informatio[n] giv[e]n.

What on earth does this even mean? So you just gave yourself the privilege of not having to take what I'm saying seriously?

No, I do understand completely what your claims are, and how those claims are incorrect, period.

We've been over this. Clearly you don't understand if you think "the 5th law changes the first 4" is what I'm saying. Stop just quoting me and tell me what your understanding is so we can get some kind of foothold in this conversation. If not, then we're both just talking to brick walls.

I don't even know what else to say. This is such a nothing response, and all it does is clearly demonstrate how you're dead set on me being wrong. I'll come at you with that evidence one of these days.

Post Reply