Understanding Separation from Unity

I was struggling with the concept of why the One infinite Creator would create sub versions of itself when reading through Claire Dartez work and why the first separation created a few different concepts.

Anyway here are my thoughts hopefully someone might find them useful.

You can have different sized Infinities:

For example in maths :The Infinite set of all Integers (1,2,3,…) is smaller than the Infinite set of all Floats(1.1, 1.2, 1.3,…)

Intelligent Infinity is the largest Infinity. It contains everything and all possibilities.

However there is a puzzling problem with this.

By the very definition Intelligent Infinity must have within it something that is not a part of it. (A Paradox)

How could something that contains everything have something which it doesn’t have?

The answer to this paradox was the creation of Otherself with Complete free Will.

This concept full-filled all the requirements.

Being independent from the creator and a finite being with an Infinite potential to be what it wants including that of containing all of the creator and becoming the creator. Having both the power of separation and unity.

The creator doesn’t have the freedom to choose what it is not but it does have the power to create something other than itself that contains itself to meet the requirement of this condition. And in doing so it full-fills the requirement of being able to be what it is not. Which resolves the paradox.

So we end up with a combination of concepts to solve this paradox:

  • Separation (otherself being what you are not)
  • creation( the implementation of otherself using separation, infinite energy? )
  • Union (being a part of and being the whole infinite creator)
  • Free will (the choice of separation or union)

So this universe was a result of trying to solve the paradox on the Infinite All. Meaning we are both finite in existence and infinite in potential. We are the creator as well as part of the creator and we are also independent of the creator because we have our own free will.


And you ready yourselves for harvest through the best service you can provide. Is this correct?


This is correct. We offer the Law of One, the solving of paradoxes, the balancing of love/light and light/love.

1 Like

Thanks for your post, however, not everything in it is completely clear to me. Where, for example, did the above thesis come from?

According to me, Intelligent Infinity is All that Is, which is distributed on many levels of Densities.

In Intelligent Infinity, which we can combine with the 7th Density, Everything is One. So the paradoxes are resolved, there is no situation at this level where two contradictions exist in parallel.

At the lower levels of Densities like 3 to 6 there is for instance a division between STO and STS, this is already a certain paradox, because how is it that there is a division between STO and STS if everything is One? Well, paradoxically this division exists and mutually functions.

However, already in the 7th Density all these paradoxes are resolved and there is no STO and STS, there is simply One.

So the division between Separation and Unity is just one of the paradoxes. In reality, there is only One. To experience life and distinguish Separation and Unity, and to develop in either direction, is to invest your energy in one of the coexisting paradoxes.

Of course, the existence of these paradoxes (like division between Separation and Unity) allows One Creator to know self better, but one must remember that ultimately All is One. Separation and Unity, is simply One, at some level.

These above words by Ra. They point to yet another kind of seminal paradox, this time it is not Separation and Unity. It is Light and Love. Light and Love being at the level of 5th Density (Light) and 4th Density (Love), is paradoxically something different. That is, Light belongs to the 5th Density, Love to the 4th Density.

However, at the level of 6th Density (where Ra are) Light and Love are merged into one, there is no longer Light and Love, there is something that can be called Intelligent Energy. Light/Love and Love/Light, are the same thing, no matter which side we approach it, it is one, it is Light-Love or loving light or Intelligent Energy, both is the same thing at the 6th level.

In general, I agree with many of the things you’ve touched on in this post, but in thinking about it, some nuances came to the surface that I wanted to address. All of this is pretty abstract stuff, so maybe we’re talking about the same thing, maybe not, it’s hard to pin down. Whatever the case. Greetings :slight_smile:

1 Like

That is the great mystery. Infinity is somehow “more”.

1 Like

Keeping in mind that I’m still trying to understand this myself. From what I am guessing at the density mechanism of these octaves is the mechanism which solves this paradox.

The universe is infinite so it must contain something that it is not. What is not infinite would be considered finite. So the infinity must contain the finite within it. Obviously this is a bit of a problem.

We are the solution to this problem. We are finite beings going around and living our lives in a finite world. But we contain within us infinite potential to evolve into whatever we desire. We are both finite and infinite at the same time. Every one of us is a unique part of the creator. And because we are only part of the creator. Subsub logos. It means we are not the whole infinte creator. We are a finite part of the creator.

So how does our finite part also be infinite. Using the density system. For the finite to be infinite it needs to be able to do whatever the creator can do. And this is why we have free will.

I forgot where this was quoted but I think it was from quo. “Nothing is lost only added”. So when we are increasing in density our essence of our finite being our individual selves is still contained it is still there. “We are still Joe blogs”. We still contain our seperate finite selves. But we are also becoming the infinite. Becoming the whole creator. We are becoming part and the whole. We are the creator but seperate from the creator. We are seperate because we are given independence to be what we want. We are our own unique limited thing. That contains within it the potential to be whatever the creator is or even be the whole creator itself(unity). Which is all without loosing the concept of our limited small selves.

We are love/light . We are love which is the infinite creator. We are light a concept derived from love describing love. The wisdom of the creator.

Love is infinite. How can you describe love. You can’t you can only know part of love in the moment. That is why the knowledge of love. “The love in the moment is infinite” Light is always the part.

I think Ra is repeating the same concept three times.
The law of one.
The resolution to the paradox.

Ra. Is trying to inform us of what we are. The one in all.

1 Like

Infinite by definition itself has no border or limit.
Thus it includes everything.
As thus there cannot be ‘many’ infinite, as in order to be ‘many’ a border / limit need to be defined to differentiate the one with the other thus many finite can be defined.
Thus it’s not a paradox at all.

You are correct that the infinite contain many finite within.
Thus in order for a finite element to become infinite, the border/limit which define “me” and “not me”, “inside” and “outside” need to be destroyed.
As such Yogis defined this ‘border’ / ‘limit’ as “maya” or virtual, which eventually will be destroyed.
You can google “Panca Maya Kosha” to understand this concept, the five layer virtual sheathing of consciousness.

1 Like

As far as I understand you can have infinities inside infinities. As shown below.

There is no rule against it.
and you can have both finite and infinite sets inside an infinite set.
but you cant have an infinite set of everything that contains a finite set.
Because you can always get something smaller than itself.

The paradox is that. It must contain something it doesn’t have to truly be all things.
It has to form something inside it that isnt inside it.

Another way of saying the same paradox is the whole infinite creator is not finite. It can not be.

Ok so what happens when you divide an infinite portion of the creator in two?
You get two infinities. And you can keep dividing as many times as you like and you get infinity. So therefore it becomes a conundrum of how do I get something that is not infinite?

The only way you can create something finite inside the creator is you create something limited that sits outside the creator. To be not part of something requires complete separateness and independence. This separateness is the set of the finite. Because the creator cant divide or create something from itself that is not infinite so thats the only thing it doesn’t include within itself. And to achieve separateness the creator cant have any say on what that thing outside of it is because its not apart of it. Which means that thing that sits outside of it gets to choose to be whatever it wants. And that can include whatever the creator can be or even the creator itself. So if you can be the creator you can fulfill the condition of being within the creator.
So we get to a place and concept of an independent(freewill) finite being that contains a possability of being all that there is including the creator.

So the resolution to the paradox is a finite system or energy that sits outside the creator. Our universe that is free to do what it wants including the potential becoming one with the creator. Obviously this finite being has a long way to go to become infinite. One would even say it would be an infinitly long learning process. Hense I think why there are multiple octaves? Although I am not completely sure about that.

And the drawing too the creator is from the condition of needing to have something inside itself that is not itself. You could call that learning.

I also think so. By the way, there’s an interesting phrase from Ra:

81.33 Questioner: Actually, [I] don’t have much more on this except to make the assumption that there must have been some type of communication throughout the octave so that, when the first experiment became effective, the knowledge of this then spread rapidly through the octave and was picked up by other budding galactic spirals, you might say. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct. To be aware of the nature of this communication is to be aware of the nature of the Logos. Much of what you call creation has never separated from the one Logos of this octave and resides within the One Infinite Creator. Communication in such an environment is the communication of cells of the body. That which is learned by one is known to all. The sub-Logoi, then, have been in the position of refining the discoveries of what might be called the earlier sub-Logoi. May we ask if we may answer any brief queries at this working?


It’s a problem I mentioned in neighbour topic. It’s Russell’s paradox. I agree with intuitionists that law of excluded middle is not valid.

Interesting to know that there is a philosophical argument behind this. Had a look at the link of the law of excluded middle and its a bit above my head.

  1. You cannot ‘divide’ infinite in two, three, four or whatever number, infinite doesn’t have border/edge/limit
  2. To define a ‘portion’ (or anything) first you need to define a border/edge/limit.
  3. From that ‘portion’ you can divide it infinitely as well… (2, 5, 1231231823128391283912 or whatever)

From the diagram above the infinite is ‘the black background’ you then define a border for light orange rectangle and then define the subportion inside it. Anything that you draw will always be inside the black blackground. Thus ‘separation’ and ‘sub separation’ is created.

To make the rectangle (or anything defined) rejoined the infinite, erase the border.
From the perspective of the rectangle, it’s then becoming zero (0).
Thus the similarity between nothingness and everythingness, both has no border.
From the perspective of the rectangle, it will say either I"m back to nothing or I rejoin everything, both has the same meaning and then it erase the border that define itself.

1 Like

Intergers are infinite in that they go on forever. (…,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,…)
If I split the infinity into two between -1 and 0 i get two infinities.

The set of all possible negative intergers and the set of all possible positive intergers.
(…, -3, -2, -1) and (0,1,2,3,…)

I think we are arguing about semantics in what you call a edge limit boundary I think of as an infinity that doesn’t contain everything. You might be correct on the terminology im not sure I haven’t studied math’s to a high level.

I just saw an article which was quite interesting about infinities. Apparently in 2017 its proved all infinities are actually the same size.

I think we are disagreeing on if this finite subset is contained within the Whole infinite.
Or somehow sits outside of it. Im thinking of it more like a fractal where Infinity contains a part of itself which is actually the whole thing. The part of the fractal isnt the whole fractal but it is. You have a division of infinity which can be a part but is really the whole thing.

How you can ‘split into two’ something without border / edge?
Try it on the computer ∞ / 2 and see what kind of result that you’ll get.
Or imagine borderless cloth, and you want to split it into two, you pick any point as a starting point (as it has no border) and then use the scissor to cut it. You will then continuously cutting the cloth using the scissor endlessly as the cloth has no border. This process of cutting the cloth will have no end.

Think it more like an infinite cloth that gets crumpled and distorted. It becomes differentiated from itself in its uniformity. It is part of the cloth but its own unique distortion.

Quote from Quo November 5th 2000

All begins in the utter unpotentiated love, or Logos, that is the Creator unknown to Itself. The first distortion of this Logos is free will. And free will is the agent of change. In the Creator, and therefore in Its creation, through free will the Creator chooses that which you know as light and which we would call the manifesting principle. The child of free will and love, light in its first manifestation, may be seen as the sudden being of all that there is. Your scientists have envisioned this as inevitably explosive and have called the birth of creation the Big Bang. However, this is creation seen through the distortion of the lens of your third density in which time and space structure perception. In other illusions where time and space have different structures it may be seen that there is not the explosion but, rather, the transformative process which rolls from light to light to light, and by this we mean that there are levels of what this instrument would call rotation of light that create vast numbers of structures which are seen as systems of vibration and vibrational fields having their relative existence in various sizes or orders of your time and space so that from the smallest to the largest structure of vibration, from the lowest to the highest density of vibration, there are put in motion by the Logos systems which are destined to roll their metamorphoses from the position of what from your density would be the beginning of the creation to the ending of creation when all of these energies have reacted with all of the other energies which are appropriate for them to react with. All energy has been spent. All desire has been balanced and the exhausted and used energy and experience has been harvested or eaten by the one infinite Creator and absorbed at the end of creation. This describes the basic background against which self-aware entities such as yourselves and we experience and add our harvest to that knowledge the Creator has of Itself. This is the first and deepest level to change, and it is a design which accomplishes what in your bodies would be a heartbeat. For the creation is the body of the Creator, and an entire creation with all of the densities of an octave express one heartbeat of that creature, which is the Creator. This is in no way a literal rendering of a Creator which has a beginning and an ending. As far as we know, the Creator is infinite and is eternal.

But you cannot split the infinite cloth in two equal piece of cloth isn’t it?

What you can do is for example, draw a circle (or any other closed loop shape such as box, star or rectangle) in the cloth which will act as a border / edge, thus ‘something’ is defined and thus finite. You then name that ‘something’ for easy referencing. Next you observe any characteristic or changes of characteristic of that ‘something’.

You can split the cloth if its infinite in length but only 10cm in width. Because all infinities are equal. You get two perfect halfs. But you cant split the cloth if both length and width are infinite or maybe you could if you were perpare to spend an infinite amount of time doing it but im not sure about that. But there would be no starting point so you couldnt.

Then by definition it’s no longer infinite. As you have bordered out 10 cm in width (dimension) but you still unbordered it’s length (another dimension).

Now let’s look at what Lao Tze 2500 years ago wrote about Tao.
Since before time and space were, the Tao is. It is beyond is and is not.
– Tao The Ching
This “Tao” is beyond (and also inside) the border of time (dimension) and space (presumably 3 dimension, width, height, length). It’s also beyond (and also inside) any preconceived borderization / limitation / definition, thus he says it is beyond (and also inside) the “IS” and the “IS NOT”.

This borderization thus definition in any dimension is what being considered as ‘separation’.
As through a border one can define “IS” and “IS NOT”. “Inside” (the closed loop border) or “outside” (the closed loop border).
This border separate the thing inside the border with what lies outside the border.

1 Like

By that definition you cant have an infinitely long piece of string. Or any sequence of numbers could not be infinite because they are 1 dimensional and run on a number line. Which just isn’t the case.

This “Tao” is beyond (and also inside) the border of time (dimension) and space (presumably 3 dimension, width, height, length). It’s also beyond (and also inside) any preconceived borderization / limitation / definition, thus he says it is beyond (and also inside) the “IS” and the “IS NOT”.

I agree with this. This matches the fractal pattern. If you have an infinite fractal pattern and zoom into it infinitely it is within. If you Zoom out from the fractal pattern it is without.

So the fractal pattern you see is not the whole fractal pattern it is a part of it but it contains infinity within the pattern and outside the pattern. So its a unique finite pattern that is infinite within and without. The “Material being the Love of the creator and the distortion of the material being changed by free will”

I am appreciating our discussion because its making me think deeper about the subject.

I watched the video and she mentioned the fact that we are “One fractil in nature” on minute 5:30


I am Latwii, and, indeed, that dance which you do is one which is filled with mystery, for within your illusion the knowing is not possible. Only the seeking is that which is important. That which is sought with the loving heart, the strong faith, and the persevering will is that which reveals itself to you as the truth of your experience and the fabric of love which enfolds all experience.


For, my sister, it is the task of each entity which inhabits your illusion to look about the self and to look within the self, and to take that which is seen and that which is sought, and make of this a fabric of the being. And then, to clothe the self in that simple fabric as the pilgrim on the journey.

{Latwii](March 7, 1992 - Sunday meditation - L/L Research)

I am Latwii, and am aware of your question, my sister. Each entity upon your planet, as we have said many times, is a part of the fabric of the one creation and the one Creator. And by their very nature, therefore, have the ability to become aware of other parts of the creation. Within your third-density illusion, the forgetting is in sway and this unity with the creation is, shall we say, a more foggy part of your being. There are times, however, as the rhythms of your being change frequency that you may become aware of a possibility which does exist for what you would describe as a future occurrence. This is one of many possibilities.

Each entity does have such insights, shall we say, whether they be the dreams during sleep, daydreams during waking consciousness, or random thoughts floating through the mind. Most do not occur for they are possibilities which were not taken, roads which were not traveled. There are, however, times when the thought, the daydream, the dream during sleep, does coincide with that road which was taken in what is perceived to be the future. It is at such times that the entity then becomes aware that the previous conscious knowing has transpired. This you have called the déjà vu experience.

I think the proper word will be ‘you cannot discern infinite’.
And by defining a number, such as 1 or 2 you already making a border of something (that is actually infinite)

This is the start border and then the end border…aah… 1… then from this point on and then another border ahh 2. You are making a distinction between 1 and 2 and also NOT 1 and 2 (the remaining which you haven’t worked on to make it distinct)
From 2 which you have make it distinct you can divide it let’s say by 2, since it’s already finite (distinct).
Then you came up with 1 (border defined) and the other 1 (border defined).
And then you pick one divided piece and then divide it by 2 again… and again… and again… and again…
Theoritically you can always divide a finite / distinct / bordered thing into 2 infinitely…

Although quantum scientist now has found out the limit of measurable space distance to be: 1.6 x 10^-35 m this distance is called the planck length. Once you reach this small, you cannot observe the border if you divide such distance by 2.

Is what is said about numbers above can be applied to Spirit?

Yes exactly…
Divide, divide and divide is borderizing, borderizing, borderizing.
Is separating, separating and separating.

Thus for unifying it’s the reverse.
Erase the border, erase the border, erase the border.
Until you came to the first layer where the initial border was being defined.
But wait, before erasing this border, let’s save the state first… this is the “higher self”.
And then erase the last layer of border, unifying back with the infinite.

1 Like