PDA

View Full Version : subjectivity and objectivity



solomon levi
05-02-2012, 05:35 AM
I kind of started this under the thread "self-restraint". I'll re-post the
pertinent part here as its own topic.

solomon levi said:
"I want to talk about the objective world. I could start another thread, but it seems
related somewhat to this one. It is our personal and subjective self-restraints that make us unique
and individual.

Anyway, doesn't it bother any of you, the subjectivity of it all.
You know, I write this post or any other post and everyone will give a different
response. Doesn't this bother anyone? Do you not see the correlation between
subjectivity and illusion and therefore lack of any objective meaning, definition, purpose, stability...?

Perhaps if we believe there is no alternative, this would be more acceptable.
But I have learned to see from Castaneda and learned to be without images from Krishnamurti
and learned of one consistent objective 'I' from Gurdjieff... it is real - one can experience an objective reality.
Two can experience it if they can both shed themselves of knowledge/past/mind.

Sometimes this subjectivity really disturbs me. I hate that I can talk to a loved one
and rarely ever be heard. What's the point? I'm just talking to myself, for myself.
Does it bother anyone else that we are always being mistranslated by other people's knowledge/experience/association?

Or do we recogognise the immense effort that such an awareness/attention requires... are we so selfish as to
not care to truly meet? Or are we so separate as to be unaware of the possibility? If we take an honest look,
are we engaged in anything else than seeking this reflection? When did this reflection become other rather
than same? (other = subjectivity variety, same = objective unity) When we became full of knowledge.

This brings me to tears. All we want is to connect, and we prevent ourselves with ourselves."



And here is some further info:

I was searching for some Castaneda and came across these quotes from
Lakoff and Johnson, whom I've never heard of, but they confirm very well
the subjective nature of the mind-knowledge system from a non-mystical
perspective. Oh! I guess I do know these guys. I mean I have their book but
have not read it - "Metaphors we live by". (I just googled them).
I have placed in bold some extra-significant perceptions IMO.

We base our actions, both physical and social, on what we take to be true. On the whole, truth matters to us because it has survival value and allows us to function in our world (p.160). We understand a statement as being true in a given situation when our understanding of the statement fits our understanding of the situation closely enough for our purposes (p.179). In order to acquire such truths and to make use of them, we need an understanding of our world sufficient for our needs (p.160). We perceive various things in the natural world as entities, often projecting boundaries and surfaces on them where no clear-cut boundaries or surfaces exist naturally (p.161-162). Human purposes typically require us to impose artificial boundaries that make physical phenomena discrete just as we are: entities bounded by a surface (p.25). Truth is relative to understanding, and the truth [we perceive] is relative to the normal way we understand the world by projecting orientation and entity structure onto it. In order to understand the world and function in it, we have to categorize, in ways that make sense to us, the things and experiences that we encounter (p.162). Since the natural dimensions of categories arise out of our interaction with the world, the properties given by those dimensions are not properties of objects in themselves but are, rather, interactional properties, based on the human perceptual apparatus, human conceptions of function, etc. [and] make sense only relative to human functioning (pp.163-164). Properties and similarities can be experienced only relative to a conceptual system (p.154). Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature (p.3). [Metaphorical necessities create] a coherent system of metaphorical concepts and a corresponding system of metaphorical expressions for those concepts (p.9). Metaphors are grounded by virtue of systematic correlates within our experience (p.58). The very systematicity that allows us to comprehend one aspect of a concept in terms of another will necessarily hide other aspects of the concept. In allowing us to focus on one aspect of a concept, a metaphorical concept can keep us from focusing on other aspects of the concept that are inconsistent with that metaphor (p.10). Metaphorical orientations are not arbitrary. They have a basis in our physical and cultural experience (p.14). Because concepts are metaphorically structured in a systematic way, it is possible for us to use expressions from one domain to talk about corresponding concepts in the metaphorically defined domain (p.52). Metaphor provides a way of partially communicating unshared experiences, and it is the natural [common] structure of our experiences that makes this possible (p.225). We understand experience metaphorically when we use a gestalt from one domain of experience to structure experience from another domain. [Mutual understanding is made] possible through the negotiation of meaning [enabling] communication of unshared experience or creating a shared vision (pp.230-232). Metaphor is imaginative rationality [and] new metaphors are capable of creating new understandings and, therefore, new realities (p.235).


Metaphor means "that which is carried over", just as I have described knowledge/the past as being
carried over onto the present by mind/memory/association. Which consider when they say:
"Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature."

That means it is not actual, but psychological/mental. Notice the use of the word "projection" in the above,
and "relative" - words that declare the subjectivity of our system/mind.

I'm going to post more sources and quotes on this observation because it is so important IMO.
That it doesn't bother everyone - that we live in a world of projections/images instead of a real
actual world - suggests the depth of sleep going on here. The Emperor is wearing no clothes!

solomon levi
05-02-2012, 07:33 AM
Castaneda has many descriptions of this clothed in a different syntax:
the tonal and the nagual, the first and second attentions, the average
man's description and the sorcerer's description, opinions/knowledge
and energetic facts/seeing, reason and intent...

The first and perhaps most pertinent observation is that the world we perceive is a description.
We perceive this description, not because it is objective or true or inherent, but because it is
taught/trained into us since the moment of our birth by our parents and peers and anyone we
come into contact with.

Here is a video reading of Ruiz's Toltec description of domestication, which is basically
identical with that taught by Castaneda, if you have the time and interest. It will be much more
thorough than I can give attention to in this post:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLa2QWcT-Pw

For me, this description is primary - I no longer have to think or remind myself that descriptions
are descriptions, so when I enter into one, I do so intentionally and consciously, without belief,
trust or faith. I don't know - can any of you relate to that?

Byron Katie, speaking about her moment of "waking up to reality" says:
"I discovered that when I believed my thoughts, I suffered, but that when I didn't believe them, I didn't suffer, and that this is true for every human being. Freedom is as simple as that. I found that suffering is optional. I found a joy within me that has never disappeared, not for a single moment. That joy is in everyone, always."

Byron Katie discovered a sort of deconstruction process called "the work". The work consists of
four simple questions and a turn-around:
1. Is it true?
2. Can you absolutely know that it's true?
3. How do you react when you believe that thought?
4. Who would you be without the thought?

These questions are asked of a chosen item, some thought that causes you stress.
The turnaround is a way of seeing other perspectives and their effects when we believe them.
For example, "my husband doesn't love me" becomes "my husband does love me", "I don't
love my husband", "I don't love me/myself"... and you find examples which often are just as true as
the original thought.

You can read examples of the work here. It may be enlightening for you to read the chapters
"A few basic principles" and "The great undoing" also:
http://books.google.com/books?id=HhwmhTeBBxoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=byron+katie+the+story&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vtygT7PVJuibiAKk1Nm6Ag&ved=0CFAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=byron%20katie%20the%20story&f=false

Or, if you prefer, here is a video of the work which may make it more tangible for you. You
can see how the story we tell ourselves causes sufferring and that changing this story or realising
it isn't true can have immediate and enormous healing effects:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1KpCZGWbL8&feature=player_embedded#!


NLP, neuro-linguistic programming, is, as you might infer from its name, concerned with how we
describe things. Some of the early NLPers were very aware of Castaneda and used some of his
descriptions in modelling reality. It too is a way of changing descriptions/stories in ways that offer
us more options and greater freedoms.

solomon levi
05-02-2012, 08:54 AM
I could find a hundred Castaneda quotes. Here are some:


"The first act of a teacher is to introduce the idea that the world we think we see is only a view, a description of the world. Accepting that seems to be one of the hardest things one can do; we are complacently caught in our particular view of the world, which compels us to feel and act as if we know everything about the world. A teacher, from the very first act he performs, aims at stopping that view. Sorcerers call it stopping the internal dialogue, and they are convinced that it is the single most important technique that an apprentice can learn."

"We, as luminous beings, are born with two rings of power, but we use only one to create the world. That ring, which is hooked very soon after we are born, is reason, and its companion is talking. Between the two they concoct and maintain the world."

"A man of knowledge develops another ring of power. I would call it the ring of not-doing, because it is hooked to not-doing. With that ring, therefore, he can spin another world. Your difficulty is that you haven’t yet developed your extra ring of power and your body doesn’t know not-doing. We all have been taught to agree about doing. You don’t have any idea of the power that that agreement brings with it. But, fortunately, not-doing is equally miraculous, and powerful."

"The concealed advantage of luminous beings is that they have something which is never used: intent or will. The maneuver of shamans is the same as the maneuver of the average man. Both have a description of the world. The average man upholds it with his reason; the shaman upholds it with his will. Both descriptions have their rules and the rules are perceivable; but the advantage of the shaman is that intent is more engulfing than reason."

"Human beings are perceivers, but the world that they perceive is an illusion: an illusion created by the description that was told to them from the moment they were born. So, in essence, the world that your reason wants to sustain is the world created by a description and its dogmatic and inviolable rules, which reason learns to accept and defend."

"We are luminous beings. We are perceivers. We are an awareness; we are not objects; we have no solidity. We are boundless. The world of objects and solidity is only a description that was created to help us, to make our passage on earth convenient. Our reason makes us forget that the description is only a description, and before they realize it, human beings have entrapped the totality of themselves in a vicious circle from which they rarely emerge in their lifetimes."

"Human beings are creatures of inventory. Knowing the ins and outs of a particular inventory is what makes a man a scholar or an expect in his field. Warriors know that when an average person’s inventory fails, the person either enlarges his inventory or his world of self-reflection collapses. The average person is able to incorporate new items into his inventory if the new items don’t contradict the inventory’s underlying order. But if the items contradict that order, the person’s mind collapses. The inventory is the mind. Warriors count on this when they attempt to break the mirror of self-reflection."

"The internal dialogue is what grounds us. The world is such and such or so and so, only because we talk to ourselves about its being such and such or so and so. The passageway into the world of sorcerers opens up after the warrior has learned to shut off the internal dialogue. To change our idea of the world is the crux of sorcery, and stopping the internal dialogue is the only way to accomplish it. The rest is just padding. Nothing of what we do, with the exception of stopping the internal dialogue, can by itself change anything in us, or in our idea of the world."

This next one shows the significance of "the stories" we tell ourselves, as Byron Katie points out:
"Whenever the internal dialogue stops, the world collapses and extraordinary facets of ourselves surface, as though they had been kept heavily guarded by our words. You are like you are, because you tell yourself that you are that way."

"The crux of sorcery is the internal dialogue; that is the key to everything. When a warrior learns to stop it, everything becomes possible; the most farfetched schemes become attainable. We are a feeling and what we call our body is a cluster of luminous fibers that have awareness. As long as you think that you are a solid body you cannot conceive what I am talking about."

"A warrior must be fluid and must shift harmoniously with the world around him, whether it is the world of reason , or the world of will . The most dangerous aspect of that shifting comes forth every time the warrior finds that the world is neither one nor the other. I was told that the only way to succeed in that crucial shifting was by proceeding in one's actions as if one believed. In other words, the secret of a warrior is that he believes without believing. But obviously a warrior cannot just say he believes and let it go at that. That would be too easy. To just believe would exonerate him from examining his situation. A warrior, whenever he has to involve himself with believing, does it as a choice, as an expression of his innermost predilection. A warrior doesn't believe, a warrior has to believe."

Here is an example showing similarities with Byron Katie's turn-arounds:
"Having to believe means that you accept the facts of something, consider all possibilities and possible outcomes, and then choose to believe in accordance with your innermost predilection. Believing is a cinch. Having to believe is something else. If you have to believe, you must use all of an event, account for all possibilities, and consider everything. Before deciding that you believe one way you must consider that it may well be another way."


I'll make this the end of Castaneda quotes on this subject. It is the significant teaching on the tonal and nagual:

"Every human being has two sides, two separate entities, two counterparts which become operative at the moment of birth; one is called the "tonal" and the other the "nagual." The tonal is the social person. The tonal is, rightfully so, a protector, a guardian--a guardian that most of the time turns into a guard. The tonal is the organizer of the world. Perhaps the best way of describing its monumental work is to say that on its shoulders rests the task of setting the chaos of the world in order. It is not farfetched to maintain, as sorcerers do, that everything we know and do as men is the work of the tonal . At this moment, for instance, what is engaged in trying to make sense out of our conversation is your tonal ; without it there would be only weird sounds and grimaces and you wouldn't understand a thing of what I'm saying. I would say then that the tonal is a guardian that protects something priceless, our very being. Therefore, an inherent quality of the tonal is to be cagey and jealous of its doings. And since its doings are by far the most important part of our lives, it is no wonder that it eventually changes, in every one of us, from a guardian into a guard. A guardian is broad-minded and understanding. A guard, on the other hand, is a vigilante, narrow-minded and most of the time despotic. I say, then, that the tonal in all of us has been made into a petty and despotic guard when it should be a broad-minded guardian.
The tonal is everything we are. Anything we have a word for is the tonal . Since the tonal is its own doings, everything, obviously, has to fall under its domain. Remember, I've said that there is no world at large but only a description of the world which we have learned to visualize and take for granted. The tonal is everything we know. I think this in itself is enough reason for the tonal to be such an overpowering affair. The tonal is everything we know, and that includes not only us, as persons, but everything in our world. It can be said that the tonal is everything that meets the eye.
You must remember this point. It is of great importance in understanding all this. The tonal begins at birth and ends at death. The tonal is what makes the world. However, the tonal makes the world only in a manner of speaking. It cannot create or change anything, and yet is makes the world because its function is to judge, and assess, and witness. I say that the tonal makes the world because it witnesses and assesses it according to tonal rules. In a very strange manner the tonal is a creator that doesn't create a thing. In other words, the tonal makes up the rules by which it apprehends the world. So, in a manner of speaking, it creates the world.
The tonal is like the top of a table--an island. And on this island we have everything. This island is, in fact, the world.
There is a personal tonal for every one of us, and there is a collective one for all of us at any given time, which we can call the tonal of the times. It's like the rows of tables in a restaurant, every table has the same configuration. Certain items are present on all of them. They are, however, individually different from each other; some tables are more crowded than others; they have different food on them, different plates, different atmosphere, yet we have to admit that all the tables are very alike. The same thing happens with the tonal . We can say that the tonal of the times is what makes us alike, in the same way it makes all the tables in a restaurant alike. Each table separately, nevertheless, is an individual case, just like the personal tonal of each of us. But the important factor to keep in mind is that everything we know about ourselves and about our world is on the island of the tonal .
What, then, is the nagual ? The nagual is the part of us which we do not deal with at all. The nagual is the part of us for which there is no description--no words, no names, no feelings, no knowledge. It is not mind, it is not soul, it is not the thoughts of men, it is not a state of grace or Heaven or pure intellect, or psyche, or energy, or vital force, or immortality, or life principle, or the Supreme Being, the Almighty, God--all of these are items on the island of the tonal. The tonal is, as I've already said, everything we think the world is composed of, including God, of course. God has no more importance other than being a part of the tonal of our time.
The nagual is at the service of the warrior. It can be witnessed, but it cannot be talked about. The nagual is there, surrounding the island of the tonal . There, where power hovers.
We sense, from the moment we are born, that there are two parts to us. At the time of birth, and for a while after, we are all nagual. We sense, then, that in order to function we need a counterpart to what we have. The tonal is missing and that gives us, from the very beginning, a feeling of incompleteness. Then the tonal starts to develop and it becomes utterly important to our functioning, so important that it opaques the shine of the nagual , it overwhelms it. From the moment we become all tonal we do nothing else but to increment that old feeling of incompleteness which accompanies us from the moment of our birth, and which tells us constantly that there is another part to give us completeness.
From the moment we become all tonal we begin making pairs. We sense our two sides, but we always represent them with items of the tonal. We say that the two parts of us are the soul and the body. Or mind and matter. Or good and evil. God and Satan. We never realize, however, that we are merely paring things on the island, very much like paring coffee and tea, or bread and tortillas, or chili and mustard. I tell you, we are weird animals. We get carried away and in our madness we believe ourselves to be making perfect sense.
What can one specifically find in that area beyond the island? There is no way of answering that. If I would say, Nothing, I would only make the nagual part of the tonal . All I can say is that there, beyond the island, one finds the nagual. But then you say, when I call it the nagual, aren't I also placing it on the island? No. I named it only because I wanted to make you aware of it. I have named the tonal and the nagual as a true pair. That is all I have done.
We sense that there is another side to us. But when we try to pin down that other side the tonal gets hold of the baton, and as a director it is quite petty and jealous. It dazzles us with its cunningness and forces us to obliterate the slightest inkling of the other part of the true pair, the nagual. The tonal 's great art is to suppress any manifestation of the nagual in such a manner that even if its presence should be the most obvious thing in the world, it is unnoticeable.
Let's say that the tonal , since it is keenly aware of how taxing it is to speak of itself, has created the terms "I," "myself," and so forth as a balance and thanks to them it can talk with other tonals , or with itself, about itself.
Now when I say that the tonal forces us to do something, I don't mean that there is a third party there. Obviously it forces itself to follow its own judgments. On certain occasions, however, or under certain special circumstances, something in the tonal itself becomes aware that there is more to us. It is like a voice that comes from the depths, the voice of the nagual . You see, the totality of ourselves is a natural condition which the tonal cannot obliterate altogether, and there are moments, especially in the life of a warrior, when the totality becomes apparent. At those moments one can surmise and assess what we really are.
The nagual is not experience or intuition or consciousness. Those terms and everything else you may care to say are only items on the island of the tonal . The nagual , on the other hand, is only effect. The tonal begins at birth and ends at death, but the nagual never ends. The nagual has no limit.
The affairs of the nagual can be witnessed only with the body, not the reason. The nagual , once it learns to surface, may cause great damage to the tonal by coming out without any control. Your tonal has to be convinced about all of this with reasons, your nagual with actions, until one props the other. As I have told you, the tonal rules, and yet it is very vulnerable. The nagual , on the other hand, never, or almost never, acts out; but when it does, it terrifies the tonal. The tonal must be protected at any cost. The crown has to be taken away from it, but it must remain as the protected overseer. Any threat to the tonal always results in its death. And if the tonal dies, so does the whole man. Because of its inherent weakness the tonal is easily destroyed, and thus one of the balancing arts of the warrior is to make the nagual emerge in order to prop up the tonal . I say it is an art, because sorcerers know that only by boosting the tonal can the nagual emerge. That boosting is called personal power.
My advantage over you at this moment is that I know how to get to the nagual , and you don't. But once I have gotten there I have no more advantage and no more knowledge than you.
A warrior must be taught to be impeccable and thoroughly empty before he could even conceive witnessing the nagual . The island of the tonal has to be swept clean and maintained clean. That's the only alternative that a warrior has. A clean island offers no resistance; it is as if there were nothing there."

solomon levi
05-02-2012, 10:02 AM
One thing I've tried to show is that the mind/memory is associative, metaphorical, a projector.
In one of Castaneda's later works, "Magical Passes", he goes into this a little:

""Everything that we do in the world," he said, "we recognize and identify by converting it into lines of similarity, lines of things that are strung together by purpose. For example, if I say to you fork, this immediately brings to your mind the idea of spoon, knife, tablecloth, napkin, plate, cup and saucer, glass of wine, chili con carne, banquet, birthday, fiesta. You could certainly go on naming things strung together by purpose, nearly forever. Everything we do is strung like this. The strange part for sorcerers is that they see that all these lines of affinity, all these hues of things strung together by purpose, are associated with man's idea that things are unchangeable and forever, like the word of God."
"I don't see, don Juan, why you bring the word of God into this elucidation. What does the word of God have to do with what you are trying to explain?"
"Everything!" he replied. "It seems to be that in our minds, the entire universe is like the word of God: absolute and unchanging. This is the way we conduct ourselves. In the depths of our minds, there is a checking device that doesn't permit us to stop to examine that the word of God, as we accept it and believe it to be, pertains to a dead world. A live world, on the other hand, is in constant flux. It moves. It changes. It reverses itself.
"The most abstract reason why the magical passes of the sorcerers are magical," he went on, "is that in practicing them, the body of the practitioner realizes that everything, instead of being an unbroken chain of objects that have affinity for each other, is a current, a flux. And if everything in the universe is a flux, a current, that current can be stopped. A dam can be put on it, and in this manner, its flux can be halted or deviated."
"When I teach you the magical passes, I am following the traditional sorcerers' device of clouding your linear view. By saturating your kinesthetic memory, I am creating a pathway for you to inner silence."


If anyone desires, you might make the connection between the ego identity as an unbroken chain of linear events,
memories, associations, a story that we tell ourselves over and over, and compare that to the nonlocal ethereal
being of the present/presence which is in constant flux - volatile as opposed to fixed; fluid and uncertain, mercurial.
By dissolving the mind/knowledge and its automatic/mechanical associations, we become free to intentionally
apply our attention to a description of our own choosing instead of the description which the world has drilled into us.

"How is it possible, don Juan, that you could be younger than I?"
"I have vanquished my mind," he said, opening his eyes wide to denote bewilderment. "I don't have a mind to tell me that it is time to be old. I don't honor agreements in which I didn't participate. Remember this: It is not just a slogan for sorcerers to say that they do not honor agreements in which they did not
participate. To be plagued by old age is one such agreement."


Again, because the mind thinks with associative memory, metaphor, projections, hopefully you can see
that these associations are automatic/mechanical. When I say banana, you have no choice in the matter
of your brain firing neuronets that have to do with yellow, crescent-shaped objects, fruits, peeling...
all associated memories. If you can see the mechanical nature of the mind, perhaps you can free
yourself of judging any particular mind as good or evil, just as you wouldn't judge a digital clock
for telling time as it was programmed to. A rapist, for example, rapes because this sequence of thoughts
occurs automatically in his mind when the proper associations are detected in his environment. To label
that "evil" is judgemental and dismissive and a failing attempt to disassociate from what you judge/label,
because your mind is the same associative mechanical automated being as his. Judgement itself is an
automatic reflex for you. No one sits there objectively weighing their options and decides "Yes, I am
going to judge him. I choose judgement." Realising what hypocrites we are is a good way to experience
the "turn-around" and see the opposite as equally true or equally untrue. Everything you see is your story.
The rapist exists in your subjective reflection, not objectively/independant of you. If you didn't have it as
an item on your island of the tonal, it could not reflect in your bubble of perception. "Rapist" is a specific
collection of associations, a story that you tell yourself, an agreement which you uphold with your internal
dialogue, a description that someone has passed down to you as part of your inventory...
Do "the work" on it. How does believing that someone has been raped make you feel? Who would you be
without that thought? Which do you prefer - to suffer under the thought/belief or to be free and happy?

zoas23
05-02-2012, 06:12 PM
2 unrelated comments:

1) Nibiru, his Girlfriend and I have the tendency of suggesting you philosophy books! :p
I can't help thinking that you should read Henri Bergson's Matter and Memory.
Here's a not very good synopsys of the book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_and_Memory
Again, the book is by far more interesting than this synopsys.
It deals a lot with different levels of perception and different levels of consciousnes.... automatic perception vs. pure perception, etc.
And, he is THE monist philosopher par excellence (which is a point of view that I know you enjoy)
A funny fact is that Henri Bergson was the brother of Moina Bergson (MacGregor Mathers wife).

2) I am always interested in the connections between Hermeticism and Art.
Something I find interesting is that when Abstract Art was born, the word "Objective Art" was used by the abstractionists, specially Malevich, to speak about non-abstract art or "realism" in the most flat sense of the word (i.e, "mundane art")... whilst they would use the expression "Subjective Art" to talk about their spiritual art that involved a perception that went beyond the 5 senses.

However, the second wave of abstractionists (specially Yves Klein and Piero Manzoni) inverted these two expressions and started to speak about "Objective Art" when they were talking about Art that tried to capture something beyond the 5 senses, their "metaphysical art"... whilst "Subjective Art" became the term to speak about "realism" or "mundane art" (again, in the flat sense of the word).

This can be a stupid comment or it can be interesting.... for me it is fascinating to see how the meaning of these two words (objective / subjective) was switched in art in just 50 years.... and each word started to mean exactly the opposite of what it meant.

solomon levi
06-10-2012, 06:42 AM
“Maybe each human being lives in a unique world, a private world different from those inhabited and experienced by all other humans. . . If reality differs from person to person, can we speak of reality singular, or shouldn't we really be talking about plural realities? And if there are plural realities, are some more true (more real) than others? What about the world of a schizophrenic? Maybe it's as real as our world. Maybe we cannot say that we are in touch with reality and he is not, but should instead say, His reality is so different from ours that he can't explain his to us, and we can't explain ours to him. The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication ... and there is the real illness.”
― Philip K. Dick

Bel Matina
07-03-2012, 04:42 PM
There actually an exoterically accessible explanation for this, although I think it enriches rather than detracts from the esoteric dimension of the topic.

I talked about different degrees of infinity in another thread (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?2984-Zeno-s-dichotomy-paradox/page2). I'm a bit mathed out at the moment, and if you want the robust explanation you can look up infinity or aleph null or a host of related terms on wikipedia. It will give you some math jargon, which will suffice if you know that language, and if you don't I would recommend picking out some search terms to find someone on the internet willing to explain it in real English (or whatever your language of choice), which you totally can. Anyway, the gist of it, if you'll bear with me, is that the size of the counting numbers and the size of the real numbers are both infinite, but the set of real numbers is bigger than the set of counting numbers even though if you add infinity to infinity you get the same (well, the bigger) infinity. It's also important later that there are as many real numbers between one and zero (or any two real numbers) as there are in the entire set of real numbers. You can read about it here, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality_of_the_continuum) though you'll have to do some searches for a plainer explanation if you don't know the mathematical jargonl

Anyway human language basically consists of the following: a set of words and a set of potential sentence structures governed by a grammar. They both work out to the size of the set of counting numbers. If you multiply the size of the counting numbers by itself, you still get the size of the counting numbers; again here's wikipedia, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countably_infinite#Formal_definition_and_propertie s) this time actually pretty accessible, although maybe I'm just getting worn out and can't tell the difference between math and English.

So, the number of things you could possibly describe, even if your vocabulary was limitless and your skill at crafting complex but illustrative sentences endless, is still equal to the size of the set of counting numbers. Even simple, abstract geometry requires the set of real numbers to describe things like angles, which we need if what we are experiencing is to make any kind of sense at all (or rather I have met nobody who claimed the contrary). Ergo, there is no freaking way you could possibly describe what you're experiencing, even if words meant the same thing to every person, which they don't (on which more below).

The thing is there are two things people mean by true; if there's languages that distinguish them, I don't know them, and I know a couple that throw other conflations in there for good measure. In English, anyway, by true you could mean that a) a statement is accurate or you could mean b) a statement is precise.

Statements can be accurate, to some degree, in that the features they express are present in the amalgam they refer to, and they can be precise, to some degree, by specifying more and more features. But every moment, every space contains a feature you could describe, even if only that it's there. As I said above spacetime (whatever it is) requires the set of real numbers, and has all the properties of that set, if you divide it into points. Unless we're talking about an extremely narrow experience, it has a beginning and an end and some stuff in between, and that stuff in between will add up to as many moments or spaces as the set of reals, since that's how many there are between any two real numbers. All of those points have at least that they're there, so that's the same number of potential things you could comment on for any possible experience.

So you can speak on the order of a countable infinity and your experiences vary on an order of an uncountable infinity. That means there's more to every experience than there is room in all the sentences you could ever theoretically possibly say to describe it. Even if you spent your immortality talking you couldn't capture with absolute precision the sandwich you ate last week. If there's features left out, they're not represented in the statement, which is inaccuracy (even if it's trivial) and so you can't be absolutely accurate either. Thus, you can't make a statement that's absolutely true.

At risk of being sophistical, I could point out that if we're plotting accuracy and precision on a number line, then any given statement gets some point on our Cartesian line, and the point of reference gets a point which, as I said above, is infinitesimally likely to be the same one. Taking for granted that this is a normal day and not a really good one, even a well crafted statement has the same number of points between it and the reference as between the reference and a statement about something else entirely, again since between any two real numbers is the same number of points as in the whole set. This sounds irritatingly vacuous until you realize that each of those points is a difference, and when I say there are as many differences between a really good description and the real thing as there are between the real thing and some entirely unrelated statement it suddenly seems to have some kind of meaningful relevance.

This kind of argument can upset people because it makes any kind of verbal communication seem hopeless and futile. This is based on a misunderstanding of what words do. Words are not for relaying experiences. Rather, they are an increasingly articulate system of gesticulations: they do manage to coordinate experiences, but they do so by locating the experience for the listener, who then has to go there (or more usually turn) and find what it is before they really understand what the speaker was talking about. The illusion that the words themselves can relay the experience is from the fact that we are frequently able to locate the experience in our memory.

It is very much possible for a memory, located in conversation, to recall sufficient abstract properties of the referent to engage in conversation, but not sufficient sense memory to create a vivid situation. For example, say you run in to an old friend, and start talking about the people and places you used to share context with. The conversation continues, and you rattle of names and titles and events, but can't quite recall what the people you mention look like or what was in the rooms where these events happened. Your old friend on the other hand remembers them vividly. In this case the conversation has continued without relaying the experience!

As for all these words, we learn their meaning by what we infer from others' use of them in their own gesticulations. It is possible, and very likely pervasive, for much if not most of an individual's understanding of the world to be unique to their own experience. As far as I can tell, that pretty tightly accounts for the schismatic (or schizophrenic) nature of our dueling subjectivities.

I have a step further I want to go with this. I'd like to continue with it, rather than just put what's been said into different words. Mediating on the hopelessness of a clear and lucid, perfectly "red" or even "white" statement, it's easy to lose sight of that set of real numbers. The substrate of our understanding, what lies inaccessibly behind our experiences, the Matrix from which our awareness arises, which in turn similarly gives birth to our understanding, which gives birth to our ability to choose. Mercurius is not Luna, and Luna is not the vast Ocean of Heaven.

This is precisely why there are no guarantees when it comes to initiation. Our Stone may be nearer to a fool than his own right hand, and our Art may be universal, but to speak of the Art is to speak of approaching the Stone in way that are not familiar to some people. I can think of many analogies with big problems, but consider martial arts, or some similar discipline of physical movement. Without showing the student the posture or moving their body into the desired forms, in other words solely with language and with no other didactic method, how do you teach it? How do you ask the student to observe your experience? How do you shape their experience into the forms and methods of the Art?

Now the answer to that last question is of course "projection", and much wiser philosophers than I have written extensively on this method of inducing initiation and the difficulties and perils therein, but for myself I'd like to point out that in this case it's not the terms of the art, no matter how many were used, but the art of the adept working on the medium, be that words or whatever, that effects the initiation.

I feel like I've ranted an awful lot, maybe even off topic, and if I have I'm sorry. I am very responsive to criticism. Positively, even.

I need to do some dishes.

solomon levi
07-04-2012, 12:49 AM
:) I love doing dishes. It's relaxing.

In my experience, when things are said many different ways, it helps form stronger neuronets
and can often lead to understanding. If i give you two associations, it will be harder to guess the object
than if I gave you seven.

I'm not familiar with the math jargon, but I'll definitely check it out.
As one who loves language, I shouldn't be deficient in this area - the most universal language.
Well, most universal language that can be written.

solomon levi
12-04-2012, 01:36 PM
"Would I feel any differently if I could see?" I asked.
"Once a man learns to see he finds himself alone in the world with nothing but folly," don Juan said cryptically.
"Your acts, as well as the acts of your fellow men in general, appear to be important to you because you have
learned to think that they are important." He used the word learned with such a peculiar inflection that it forced
me to ask what he meant by it. He stopped handling his plants and looked at me.
"We learn to think about everything." he said, "and then we train our eyes to look as we think about the things
we look at. We look at ourselves already thinking that we are important. And therefore we've got to feel important!
But then when a man learns to see, he realizes that he can no longer think about the things he looks at, and if he
cannot think about what he looks at everything becomes unimportant."
"don Juan, do you mean that once a man learns to see everything in the whole world is worthless?"
"I didn't say worthless. I said unimportant. Everything is equal and therefore unimportant. For example, there is no
way for me to say that my acts are more important than yours, or that one thing is more essential than another,
therefore all things are equal and by being equal they are unimportant."

III
12-06-2012, 04:38 AM
:) I love doing dishes. It's relaxing.

In my experience, when things are said many different ways, it helps form stronger neuronets
and can often lead to understanding. If i give you two associations, it will be harder to guess the object
than if I gave you seven.

I'm not familiar with the math jargon, but I'll definitely check it out.
As one who loves language, I shouldn't be deficient in this area - the most universal language. Well, most universal language that can be written.


Hi Solomon,

If I were to write a bunch on this, it could end up a lot like Bel Matina's. I would like to propose that there is a universal language. Consider that the language that "gnosis", the creation, our self descriptions etc are all written in is the same and that it is how we decipher it that comes up with differences. So we have an "archetype" called MyBedroom. You see whatever MyBedroom looks like to you. That interpretor travels with you. Somebody else seeing MyBedroom would see whatever they have stored as that object. I propose that base class object is the same for everybody. It translates in the same way, whether it brings up a hammock hanging from a black walnut or a California King made from Maple. MyBestFriend brings up appropriate person or best approximation or perhaps missing having such. Again, everybody regardless of language comes up with the closest fit in their life to the archetype. It is what makes past life memory very difficult becasue when remembering the "past" one often uses their "current archetypes" and so it just looks like another day, perhaps a strange day because things may not fit very well, from the here and now.

I know it is a very different way of looking at it but that is approximately how I do "see" it, not a hypothesis. I call this Object Oriented Cosmic ASseMbly language (CASM). While each object is made up from smaller objects, it is the same everywhere in the Creation that I have seen, which off course is a tiny amount, but reasonably wide spread at many levels and dimensions. We each interpret it however we do. It's possible to see the same archetypes together and to compare notes and basically bring interpretations into a similarity. In that way "maps" can be shared.

Objective and subjective then is a very difficult distinction. In some states one can see the "archetypes" as basically wireframe drawings that we put our own wallpaper on to make it MY whatever. Now when I see MyBedroom, somebody else sees it as YourBedroom. How closely do they agree? Who can tell?. Every now and then my partner and I have diverged memories. We have completely different "what happened accounts". My ex-wife and I had them too. We didn't always travel the same path to get there is the only thing we were able to figure. I was having lots of NDEs and was liable to end up almost anywhen in my life. How many people get in trouble with friend or partner about 180 degree different memories? The are often so different that there is no way possible for merely being a different descriptions of the same event.


My ex-wife was a color chemist with a paint company. She had to take a very precise color test to make sure she had a very precise and accurate color vision and can distinguish smaller than average differences. I could see the differnces she could BUT we often had some very different names that we would pin on that color. I had always heard b12 described as deep red. The first time I saw it I knew it was not red at all. It is deep magenta. Anybody working with subtractive color could tell you that. Most people don't have an archetype for magenta by that name.

solomon levi
12-06-2012, 05:50 PM
I think I follow you.
This is why trees and mountains are different than labelling someone awakened or asleep...
trees are objects. Awakened or asleep are adjectives, not nouns - they're not objects.
They are psychological images without actual physical existence. You can't put
"awakened" in my hand and say, "here it is".
An objective language cannot be based on subjective minds or mental imaginings.
It must be based on something inherent. And it must describe the present moment,
seeing that past and future are not actual, but again are psychological alone. Therefore
only people capable of being present can speak such a language - that is the first and
only prerequisite, taking care of everything else.
But being present means you can't think. Thinking uses images (from the past/known)
and is completely psychological/mental/subjective. The present is unknown - zen
beginners' mind.

III
12-07-2012, 12:54 AM
I think I follow you.

This is why trees and mountains are different than labelling someone awakened or asleep...
trees are objects. Awakened or asleep are adjectives, not nouns - they're not objects.
They are psychological images without actual physical existence. You can't put
"awakened" in my hand and say, "here it is".
An objective language cannot be based on subjective minds or mental imaginings.
It must be based on something inherent. And it must describe the present moment,
seeing that past and future are not actual, but again are psychological alone. Therefore
only people capable of being present can speak such a language - that is the first and
only prerequisite, taking care of everything else.
But being present means you can't think. Thinking uses images (from the past/known)
and is completely psychological/mental/subjective. The present is unknown - zen
beginners' mind.

Hi Solomon,


So now the next step. Let's say that we voyage together to the chamber in which the entire creation can be seen as a crystal clear drop of water as EJ Gold describes it. When there we can agree "Yes, I can be in that chamber and see the creation as a drop of water". And of course there are gazzillions of chambers. In a 16 dimentional system each chamber like a 3 dimensional graphical system has 3 parameters to specify "where", a 16 dimensional system would have 16 such parameters, each infinite. The more of the 16 dimensions we can agree on orientation in and how they relate to the other dimensions, stacking order for instance, the more we woulf be able to agree on what is in any particular area.

Various schools have their own methods for bringing people into alighnment, some more than others.



The closest to "objective" I can come is to be in approximately the same chamber as somebody and be able to agree on what wisdom, knowledge, understanding etc is in that chamber. When we are in gnosis together we can all see and "get" the same flow of information. That still doesn't really supply any meaning. We assign meaning to whatever the information is. Often in working these things through with a person I find we have to focus on one dimension at a time to negotiate "orientation". Some people travel "front away from center or front towards center, or facing direction of travel or facing opposite direction of travel, etc. The more of those that a person, or a school of persons can bring into agreement the better those two or more beings will be able to understand each other. So in working to come into understanding with my Yogi friend, which was easy, because we both already shared the basic Ramakrishna/Vivekanada dimensional orientation to a very great extent, we could share our maps of the the creation, of the n-dimensional Labyrinth. An example is very easy. If we were standing on the shore of the Great Salt Lake one was facing northwest, water is everywhere, facing southeast not a drop to be seen but instead snowcapped mountains. Both descriptions are of the same place but 180 degree orientation. The two descriptions, limited to field of vision would not be understood to be of the same place, until orientation is matched. Now picture a 16 dimensional rubics cube. That would be a little tougher to unscramble and even to talk about.

solomon levi
12-07-2012, 05:39 AM
Hi III.
I'm not familiar with 16 dimensions. I don't know how to begin experiencing that or
what it means. How does it translate? Is viewing all 16 what I call Universe/the whole?

I am very capable of abandoning my own point of view to assume another person's.
I call that fluidity and detachment. But most people are easy - not complicated - to see.
Most people are fixed in the same dimension, so having known myself and the ways of
my own ego, I know all egos. Now to go outside of that, into the unknown, is another
matter. The present is extremely fluid - a flux - so it is difficult to describe any particulars,
but generically, it is easy to meet in the present.

I'm sorry - I'm not yet sure how to bridge our language gap. It would be a lot of work for
me to leave my simple position where "my yoke is easy and my burden is light" in order to
comprehend 16 dimensions... a very mental construct. It is far easier to communicate if we
start with what is actual and physical before our very eyes, without thinking or cojitating.
Dimensions don't really come into play with nonduality/the present. :)

Otherwise, perhaps you can describe and name some dimensions I would be familiar with.
What is the first "new" dimension one encounters when they step outside of the ego box?
How would you describe it? I mean, your system is practical, right? Not just in your head,
but in the world? What is different about the "new" dimension compared to the known familiar one(s)?

I really, really enjoy true connection and communication, so it is worth the effort if we want to
give it a try. It's a rare and miraculous thing - funny how people assume it is always happening
when we are really just talking in/to the mirror and seeing the agreement we want to see whether
it is there or not. It is rare to find people willing and able to put forth the effort to truly communicate.
There are lots of people willing to describe themselves, but few willing to let go and listen/dream/
shift the assemblage point. I've met lots of people that believe that would be giving their power away!
Listening/reception is the only power we have.

III
12-07-2012, 06:53 PM
Hi III.

I'm not familiar with 16 dimensions. I don't know how to begin experiencing that or
what it means. How does it translate? Is viewing all 16 what I call Universe/the whole?

I am very capable of abandoning my own point of view to assume another person's.
I call that fluidity and detachment. But most people are easy - not complicated - to see.
Most people are fixed in the same dimension, so having known myself and the ways of
my own ego, I know all egos. Now to go outside of that, into the unknown, is another
matter. The present is extremely fluid - a flux - so it is difficult to describe any particulars,
but generically, it is easy to meet in the present.

I'm sorry - I'm not yet sure how to bridge our language gap. It would be a lot of work for
me to leave my simple position where "my yoke is easy and my burden is light" in order to
comprehend 16 dimensions... a very mental construct. It is far easier to communicate if we
start with what is actual and physical before our very eyes, without thinking or cojitating.
Dimensions don't really come into play with nonduality/the present. :)

Otherwise, perhaps you can describe and name some dimensions I would be familiar with.
What is the first "new" dimension one encounters when they step outside of the ego box?
How would you describe it? I mean, your system is practical, right? Not just in your head,
but in the world? What is different about the "new" dimension compared to the known familiar one(s)?

I really, really enjoy true connection and communication, so it is worth the effort if we want to
give it a try. It's a rare and miraculous thing - funny how people assume it is always happening
when we are really just talking in/to the mirror and seeing the agreement we want to see whether
it is there or not. It is rare to find people willing and able to put forth the effort to truly communicate.
There are lots of people willing to describe themselves, but few willing to let go and listen/dream/
shift the assemblage point. I've met lots of people that believe that would be giving their power away!
Listening/reception is the only power we have.



Hi Solomon,


Have you ever had calculus? In learning calculus, there were equations that can't be solved as originally stated. So one does triganometric identities, changimg the form of the problem to something else equal, but differently arranged. A trivial example not involving trig follows; E = MC^2. So E/M = C^2 or E/C^2 = M or (E/M)^1/2 = C etc. Of course with trig functions it's more complicated and actually makes a difference in solvability of a specifc identity.


Another thing about calculus. It introduces the idea of approaching limits. A converging series such as 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 ...., going halfway to something each time, you never get there. If however you take the limit as change approaches zero it equals 1. Calculus makes changing rates problems easy rather than taking smaller and smaller increments to aproximate the area undea a curve (trapozoidal method) one does it by integration. Not eveything can be integrated. That is where identities come in.


All around us is what we already perceive, the creation of which we are an inherent part. Things that we can't "decode" or "unpack" are backround noise, the OM, the light, the various colors and patterns of energy moving by. Sometimes it can look like a Escher tessilation in motion or whatever archetypes we let be used to interpret. Person A dies and is "met" by "Mother" or "Jesus" or "St Peter" or some other trusted face or maybe a Grey or nothing visible at all, just a presence. That image is what we each project upon the energy of the moment. We can learn various archetype sets, building blocks of CASM.


So when it is all said and done, a person sees the same creation as ever, just the explanation has changed and there is ever so much more gnosis in it. All that was "noise" becomes information.


Let's start then with the ones easiest to approach, the seven chakras and the seven specific composite energy of each chakra. We could do the 10 chakra system or a single heart chakra, then we would be picking out the stongest 7 energies and would come up with the same thing. So let's for this purpose sit with 7 chakras.

Each chakra, each petal for that matter, can be used as a sensory mechanism, the energy flow being sensed and worked with. Most folks have blockage after blockage which needs to be chased down and released, allowing greater energy flows. E.J. Gold, in THE HUMAN BIOLOGICAL MACHINE AS A TRANSFORMATIONAL APPARATUS coins the phrase "chronic reaction". Most folks have a reaction against the energy-information as it shows them to be different than their fondest beliefs. So they deny the light and block it out. Whenever a little piece of information threatens to be seen a person has to push it away with their "chronic reaction", chronic for short. For many it is fear or anger or something like that. As one identifies these blockages and removes them, that is part of purification, more light flows and lights up deeper and deeper layers of blockages. One starts with the first up, the natural order they come up, in order to untangle the mess. Basically it is a LIFO stack arrangement. You pop the stack from the current end. In effect I have seen this work backwards from last week backwards through life to childhood traumas and then suddenly, back to a different life, often with the death trauma there for many. I spent about 10 year dealing with peoples pre-death traumas from the Nazi concentration camps, my own included in a group like this one except run by a mystic Rabbi also with such memories. I also worked with some who were Nazis in that life and were very traumatized by what they were did. Sometimes other things show up from past lives several back. When I go back with somebody doing this I see and experience what they are experincing, and help them unblock the log jam. Often I have to play out or talk through the other role, the one killing, raping or torturing in a psychodrama fashion except that the person is fully into it and I see it as an overlay so I can retain control.

As these blocks are released more energy flows along that channel. What happen is that the energy then becomes didfferent from how a person felt about it when the had the blockage that was met with terror. Now sensory systems seem to come into play here. Let's arbitrarily say that we can sense any given energy from 0 to 10 even though it is not that limited. When we hit ten and let more in, our sensory experience is already maxed out and no differenc is sensible. The most painful burns are 2nd degree. As the tissue is destroyed in 3rd degree the pain stops. There is a maximum burn intensity. However, 1 square mm of 2nd degree burn is nothing, a pin prick. The whole body with second degree burn is totally overwhelmed with pain. There is a 2nd dimension of that pain, "area".



So when we reach the top of scale on our ability to perceive intensity of these energies, if we go a little farther, there is a forced "rescale". The intensity of energy drops back to 1 but spreads out 10 wide, same amount of total intensity but now it is 1 on intensity and somehow, much more body to it. Here is were these other things come in. As one approaches that "rescale" point progress gets slower and slower, the things we do make less and less difference. It can keep going that way indefinbitely unless one makes that jump to the limit that is being approached. So in the instant we release the block and the pent-up energies surge through we reach the energy level of limit plus the "heat of fusion" which causes the rescale. It's like that extra energy to thaw ice or vaporize water, like superheating water in a microwave and suddenly a pint of water explodes out in the microwave in a steam eruption at the bottom of the container as the superheated water converts to steam instantly.


This goes in cycles over and over, sort of in a lugnut tightening pattern, bring the various chakra energies all to the same degree of scaling, producing a balance. One learns the effect of changing each energy with experience, how it affects understanding and knowing. It removes distorting factors from our energy interpretation mechanism and one learns with experience which way one is facing in the chakra flow. Each of these 7 main energies can be considered as the control for expanding ourself into that dimension. Each one affects our knowing in a consistant way. As the building block units get bigger knowing increases, much more slowly than one would want generally burt always as fast as we possibly can. Then the week or so after we are confronted with all the things that would kick us out of that new "quantum" level of energy it becomes part of our self and to be built again. Each axis (chakra) has a disticntive color and feel so we can tell which one we are working with. For most folks somewhere between about 5 and 10 dimensions can be learned in this way.

In GAMES PEOPLE PLAY (transactional analysis) Berne writes of 3 levels of games. Level 1, for funnsies. Level two games end wiith slammed doors or similar intensities. Third level games are more intense, often ending in murder and such, ending up in court.

How much intensity can a person tolerate without blowing up to stop it?

One finds the entry point into this method by releasing blockages. Once one starts, it becomes increasing difficult to stop and after it gets going pretty well there is no graceful way to exit the process. Basically, one should not start unless one is going to go all the way. A couple of cycles still allows a safe exit. After that it starts to get serious.





To be continued.

lwowl
12-07-2012, 07:38 PM
Hi Solomon,


So now the next step. Let's say that we voyage together to the chamber in which the entire creation can be seen as a crystal clear drop of water as EJ Gold describes it. When there we can agree "Yes, I can be in that chamber and see the creation as a drop of water". And of course there are gazzillions of chambers. In a 16 dimentional system each chamber like a 3 dimensional graphical system has 3 parameters to specify "where", a 16 dimensional system would have 16 such parameters, each infinite. The more of the 16 dimensions we can agree on orientation in and how they relate to the other dimensions, stacking order for instance, the more we woulf be able to agree on what is in any particular area.

Various schools have their own methods for bringing people into alighnment, some more than others.



The closest to "objective" I can come is to be in approximately the same chamber as somebody and be able to agree on what wisdom, knowledge, understanding etc is in that chamber. When we are in gnosis together we can all see and "get" the same flow of information. That still doesn't really supply any meaning. We assign meaning to whatever the information is. Often in working these things through with a person I find we have to focus on one dimension at a time to negotiate "orientation". Some people travel "front away from center or front towards center, or facing direction of travel or facing opposite direction of travel, etc. The more of those that a person, or a school of persons can bring into agreement the better those two or more beings will be able to understand each other. So in working to come into understanding with my Yogi friend, which was easy, because we both already shared the basic Ramakrishna/Vivekanada dimensional orientation to a very great extent, we could share our maps of the the creation, of the n-dimensional Labyrinth. An example is very easy. If we were standing on the shore of the Great Salt Lake one was facing northwest, water is everywhere, facing southeast not a drop to be seen but instead snowcapped mountains. Both descriptions are of the same place but 180 degree orientation. The two descriptions, limited to field of vision would not be understood to be of the same place, until orientation is matched. Now picture a 16 dimensional rubics cube. That would be a little tougher to unscramble and even to talk about.



I’ve been following this conversation with interest but, I’m not sure what you mean by “dimensions.” I can see 12 dimensions to the All, and the physicists seem to agree somewhat having come to the conclusion thus far that there are 11 dimensions. There is a gray area where one is two and two are one.

If you were to voyage to a “chamber” where the entirety of Creation could be seen as a drop of water where would you be? If you were outside the sphere of Creation would you still be a part of It?

lwowl

III
12-07-2012, 08:56 PM
I’ve been following this conversation with interest but, I’m not sure what you mean by “dimensions.” I can see 12 dimensions to the All, and the physicists seem to agree somewhat having come to the conclusion thus far that there are 11 dimensions. There is a gray area where one is two and two are one.

If you were to voyage to a “chamber” where the entirety of Creation could be seen as a drop of water where would you be? If you were outside the sphere of Creation would you still be a part of It?

lwowl

Hi 1wow1

If you were to voyage to a “chamber” where the entirety of Creation could be seen as a drop of water where would you be? If you were outside the sphere of Creation would you still be a part of It?

This is of course about the first question I asked upon reading about it. I didn't get any good answers either. The best I can answer is what Gahan Wilson said about his art "I only draw what I see".

I have been there and seen that, once, understanding it, or at least having a label to pin on it, after reading EJ Gold. I had seen it before as well but had no idea. The one time after was with a fellow voyager and we specifically set off to do so, with me "directing" the other person in a couple of places and mostly me going along as he knew most of the way. In doing that we did "validate" the chamber and added to the consensus that it is there to be seen.

I have also seen the creation blooming as a beautiul butterfly over and over and just as it reaches full spread crumpling up into a dried prune type look and the terrible "disappointment" (series of moods while observing that) that it happens again and again, just as EJ described it.

Now as one is in a place where
"IT is seen where there are no eyes"
"IT is heard where there are no ears"

Also if one considers the whole thing as a n-dimensional klein bottle there is no inside or outside, there is the inner outside and the outer inside which are one and the same, no duality.

The view is a virtual view I would have to say. Of course one is always part of the creation no matter the virtual view.

As far as number of dimensions, that is the number one can access. Everything else is theoretical. It's like the Rule of fives in the IlluminatusTrilogy. It takes ingenuity.

The reason I use 16 is that I counted them as I went through each one and ended up with an image of something like a 16 dimensional tesserect that looks like all corners, totally "rough" like a fractal made of corners. And as that is widely represented in art in various ways, 16 dimensions projected upon 2 or 3, you come up with all corners. Actually I think the number is more like 21 or 22 but there is not so much consensus there and each successive one has to become consensus before the higher ones become available. The thing is, as an Object Oriented fractal, if the base class is changed all the instances of that class change immediately as well. So if one has built a structure that has a 12 dimension class at it's root, and one is able to add another dimension to the class, then the whole fractal changes essentially immediately and then was always that.

solomon levi
12-08-2012, 02:54 AM
No - no calculus. :)

If you could observe creation as a drop from the outside, then creation is not the universe/one/whole/all.
You have to define what you mean by creation. It is much simpler to speak about Oneness. There is only
one definition of One that isn't an invention, that is seeing. Whereas "creation" can be a pole/complement/
of the uncreated, and therefore part, not All/One.

The eye cannot see itself. This is very simple. You are the universe - you can't see the universe as a drop.
If you can, what you are seeing is not the UNIverse. It's that simple. No calculus is necessary or complicated
dimensions - only presence. Of course, calculus and dimensions can be fun, and I am not against these. I'm
just saying it is not the simplest way to communicate. And I mean "simple" as what it is, not as a judgement.
Latin simplus means "single".

The eye cannot see itself. This is why the eye is used as a symbol of God/Universe.

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT5e9F84GDpAzUMdsCG4Ylp4YnhSa2ok 80z2ZMx9E2LU64--jH42A

Here you see the emanations coming from the eye, the source. It is also in a triad telling us
it is the source of the tria prima.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRdX0adKBXSNDE6HGj8nNp3nvKetqUrG P5zVS615dM2SagfKbkq

We also have the alchemical connection of dragon as prima materia:
dragon (n.) (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=dragon&allowed_in_frame=0) early 13c., from O.Fr. dragon, from L. draconem (nom. draco) "huge serpent, dragon," from Gk. drakon (gen. drakontos) "serpent, giant seafish," apparently from drak-, strong aorist stem of derkesthai "to see clearly," from PIE *derk- "to see." Perhaps the lit. sense is "the one with the (deadly) glance." The young are dragonets (14c.). Obsolete drake "dragon" is an older borrowing of the same word. Used in the Bible to translate Heb. tannin "a great sea-monster," and tan, a desert mammal now believed to be the jackal.
As well as aries starting the alchemical year, the aries glyph being a fount.
Hebrew Ayin/O means eye, fount, source.

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS4HHvKR0ipLBlXHV73EaskwxUcuOb-JBJPpKXHnZVSq7_Cf5ULHg

The eye is the source, the hand is the emanations through which the One works its wonders.

Jakob Boehme: "When you are gone forth wholly from the creature [human], and have become nothing to all that is nature and creature, then you are in that eternal one, which is God himself, and then you will perceive and feel the highest virtue of love. Also, that I said whoever finds it finds nothing and all things; that is also true, for he finds a supernatural, supersensual Abyss, having no ground, where there is no place to live in; and he finds also nothing that is like it, and therefore it may be compared to nothing, for it is deeper than anything, and is as nothing to all things, for it is not comprehensible; and because it is nothing, it is free from all things, and it is that only Good, which a man cannot express or utter what it is. But that I lastly said, he that finds it, finds all things, is also true; it has been the beginning of all things, and it rules all things. If you find it, you come into that ground from whence all things proceed, and wherein they subsist, and you are in it a king over all the works of God." [The Way to Christ, 1623]

Notice that one must go forth wholly from the creature. This is what I say when I tell you there is other than creation.
Creature = created thing = creation.

Following we see Boehme's terms for this Whole/Universe as Philosophical Globe, Wonder-Eye of Eternity, Looking Glass of Wisdom:
http://www.wholeo.net/Trips/Wholeo/symbol/bohme.htm

So, if this can't be heard, I don't know any better way to say it.
The eye cannot see itself. That is why it is the symbol of God/Universe -
the Universe cannot be seen from the outside. There is no outside of Oneness.
Oneness is All/Infinity. There cannot be two Onenesses without destroying the
definition/integrity of One. Thus there can be no outsider to observe the Whole/Universe
or there would be two and we should call it Duoverse or Biverse or something.

One more amazing CC quote:
"I've told you that the true art of a warrior is to balance terror and wonder. Power can be met only with power. The crux of sorcery is the internal dialogue; that is the key to everything. When a warrior learns to stop it, everything becomes possible; the most farfetched schemes become attainable. We are a feeling and what we call our body is a cluster of luminous fibers that have awareness. As long as you think that you are a solid body you cannot conceive what I am talking about.
Warriors keep controlled and aloof. They don't believe anything, but still act efficiently.
We are luminous beings. We are perceivers. We are an awareness; we are not objects; we have no solidity. We are boundless. The world of objects and solidity is a way of making our passage on earth convenient. It is only a description that was created to help us. We, or rather our reason , forget that the description is only a description and thus we entrap the totality of ourselves in a vicious circle from which we rarely emerge in our lifetime.
We are perceivers. The world that we perceive, though, was created by a description that was told to us since the moment we were born.
We, the luminous beings, are born with two rings of power, but we use only one to create the world. That ring, which is hooked very soon after we are born, is reason , and its companion is talking. Between the two they concoct and maintain the world. So, in essence, the world that your reason wants to sustain is the world created by a description and its dogmatic and inviolable rules, which the reason learns to accept and defend.
The secret of the luminous beings is that they have another ring of power which is never used, the will . The trick of the sorcerer is the same trick of the average man. Both have a description; one, the average man, upholds it with his reason ; the other, the sorcerer, upholds it with his will . Both descriptions have their rules and the rules are perceivable, but the advantage of the sorcerer is that will is more engulfing than reason . You must learn to let yourself perceive whether the description is upheld by your reason or by your will . That is the only way for you to use your daily world as a challenge and a vehicle to accumulate enough personal power in order to get to the totality of yourself."

"We are perceivers" = the eye of God.
The totality of oneself = the universe/infinity.
The two rings of power are the same as Boehme sees in the above diagram I presented.

"Böhme explained that the divine eye, a circle, must be split into two and the two resulting arcs placed back to back and rotated in opposite directions." 0 = 8; 8 = 0. Nothing is Infinity. Emptiness is Fullness/Pleroma.
Emptiness/0 is form/8, form is emptiness.

Bel Matina
12-08-2012, 03:10 AM
Ah, Solomon, for once I disagree with you. You can find the all in a drop. I will spare the math about how the universe represents itself holographically (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hologram#Fidelity_of_the_reconstructed_beam), and point out that zero or infinity divided by two is still the same. The all can be seen, albeit blurrily, as if from a great height, in even the smallest drop of water. For the purposes of finding and regenerating the stone, that is sufficient.

lwowl
12-08-2012, 07:23 AM
III:
"This is of course about the first question I asked upon reading about it. I didn't get any good answers either. The best I can answer is what Gahan Wilson said about his art "I only draw what I see"."

We all do. It is what you cannot see that will give you the revelation that answers your question.
The short answer is you would be Nowhere.

So, if you were outside the sphere of Creation would you still be part of It?

III:
"Now as one is in a place where
"IT is seen where there are no eyes"
"IT is heard where there are no ears"

"Also if one considers the whole thing as a n-dimensional klein bottle there is no inside or outside, there is the inner outside and the outer inside which are one and the same, no duality.

"The view is a virtual view I would have to say. Of course one is always part of the creation no matter the virtual view."

You would be Nothing at the Center of It: the alchemical Point. That is why you can conceive of It at All.

III:
"As far as number of dimensions, that is the number one can access. Everything else is theoretical. It's like the Rule of fives in the IlluminatusTrilogy. It takes ingenuity.

"The reason I use 16 is that I counted them as I went through each one and ended up with an image of something like a 16 dimensional tesserect that looks like all corners, totally "rough" like a fractal made of corners."

It seems that what you are calling “dimensions” I refer to as “whorlds:” a synchronization of world and whirl. Even the quantum mechanics are seeing that all “things” are essentially whirls of matter/energy giving rise to affects or worlds or “chambers” as you might say. To me “dimensions” are information system parameters allowing matter/energy effects to affect You and Me. We are One at the Center of It: One is Two and Two is One: you and me. We screw with Entropy and create whorlds.

You are Nothing so Everything sticks to You/you. Therefore I/eye am Nothing so Everything sticks to Me/me.

lwowl

solomon levi
12-08-2012, 02:58 PM
Ah, Solomon, for once I disagree with you. You can find the all in a drop. I will spare the math about how the universe represents itself holographically (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hologram#Fidelity_of_the_reconstructed_beam), and point out that zero or infinity divided by two is still the same. The all can be seen, albeit blurrily, as if from a great height, in even the smallest drop of water. For the purposes of finding and regenerating the stone, that is sufficient.

Hi Bel Matina!
I'm sure you're not disagreeing. Maybe misunderstanding.
Of course we can see it holographically. But a hologram is created by reflection,
and there is no reflection in One. To disagree with me, you have to say the eye can
see itself, and you haven't said that, nor seen that, because it is impossible. What
can see the eye is not the eye, therefore it takes two to see the eye - the eye and the
thing that sees it.
I don't know why it is so difficult to explain One. One is not two. One is not 1/2.
One is one. If you are seeing One you are seeing it from two (second position).
How is that not clear?

People also don't seem to understand seeing, or not using thought. All this math and
dimensions and holograms... they have nothing to do with the present actual reality.
They all evolve from thinking/mind without any physical existence. And that doesn't
mean anything to anybody, but it is a true dimension. That is, thinking is one dimension.
Everything you can think of is still in that dimension. No thought is another/the next dimension.
These are real dimensions that we can directly experience physically. The dimensions most
people talk about are mental gymnastics - we can draw some of them on paper, but can we
DO them? No. The doer is the same whether you are drawing/explaining the first dimension
or the second. It's a model, but it isn't practical - it doesn't change you. You don't change
dimensions by talking about them or drawing them. The first and only change a thinker can
do is to not think.
(Ha! I'm returning to this part of my post because i found a quote without looking for it that
said the same thing: "Nothing of what we do, with the exception of stopping the internal
dialogue, can by itself change anything in us, or in our idea of the world." - Castaneda)

So what good is math and language and philosophy compared to Presence? I can't talk to
people because no one seems to know what THIS is. THIS is the prima materia before
everyone's eyes but they do not see it. Without THIS, there is no alchemy. As long as the
mind/thinker is going, THIS is missed, because THIS is present and mind/thinker is past.
Everything you can think about is already stored in your mind. We think with the known,
the past. THIS, the present, is an unknown. It has never happened before, and we don't
soil it with the past/knowledge/thought/images if we want it to be prima materia/living mercury -
quick silver.

Yes, it is sufficient to find it in a drop. That doesn't make a drop the All. A drop has boundaries
and there is something outside the drop. Infinity/universe has no boundary! It cannot see itself
because there is nothing outside of itself to see with. To be outside would mean infinity has a boundary,
which obviously is NOT the definition of infinity.


I don't know what universe you guys are talking about.
I am the universe. You guys obviously are not since you can see it separate from you.
But I must insist - you are the Youniverse.


I'm really sorry. This is frustrating. If math is so complicated that one doesn't mean one anymore,
then please throw your math away. And holograms are produced by several parts - by a reflected laser.
The mind is holographic. The UNIverse is not. Everything in the universe is. The universe, having no
boundary, is not a thing. How can you see a no thing? You just can't. It's rediculous.
You can't look at the universe like a drop! A drop is not infinite. There's no comparison.
There is not one thing that compares to infinity/no-thing-ness. It is one of a kind.

Abstract math/thought is the barrier. There's nothing abstract about the present.
Only the present is living, philosophical, not vulgar/common.
Abstractions have no body. The ego is an abstraction that lives vicariously and parasitically off of the body.
We are all possessed until we dissolve into one homogeneous substance.
Then the demon/past/Urizen is gone and the angel/presence appears.
The angel/white stone is a completely different entity/dimension - one is truly born again, or second birth.

I'm wandering. I love you all. Forgive me.

Oh, one more way to say it: You can imagine you are a part, you are separate, you are smaller than the universe.
But you can't imagine you are bigger than infinity/universe. To see the universe you must be larger than it -
larger than infinity. Are you trying to tell me that? That you're larger than infinity? Again, total nonsense.

Have I explained it well enough this time?
Do you hear what I mean? Not what you mean. Do you see what I understand as the universe?
From that view, can you disagree? It is not a disagreement with me if you define universe differently than I.
Apples and oranges aren't in disagreement - they're just two different things.
My universe can't be seen and yours can.
My universe has no boundary and yours does.
My universe is not a thing and yours is.
We're obviously calling two different "things" by the same name and that causes confusion.
My universe is actually UNI and yours isn't.
Or, you imagine you are separate from your universe in order to see it and I have no illusions of being
outside of infinity - I am infinity. In order to see myself I would have to make a duplicate infinity
and project it somewhere else outside of myself. How would you accomplish this? What is outside of infinity?
Instead, we made duplicates as microcosms from the macrocosm and projected them inside ourselves,
inside infinity. We "enfolded" space-time into the implicate order and made fractalicious holograms:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order_according_to_David_B ohm#The_hologram_as_analogy_for_the_implicate_orde r
(I'm not saying I agree with everything Bohm says - I don't know him that well. But the general idea
seems accurate to me.)
We enfolded because you can't unfold infinity - you can only go smaller.

Allright - I should have shut up a long time ago.

solomon levi
12-08-2012, 03:07 PM
Much shorter version - I didn't say you can't find the all in a drop.
I said you can't see the universe/infinity.

I guess this is what you read: "You are the universe - you can't see the universe as a drop.
If you can, what you are seeing is not the UNIverse."

You see the difference? You said IN and I said AS.
Infinity has no boundary like a drop does.

If you see the universe as a drop, then there are two things - the drop and you.
Two things is not a UNIverse. A universe is One/infinite with no possibility of anything outside it to see it all.

Bel Matina
12-08-2012, 03:19 PM
Solomon - a hologram is the quintessential image, as the dynamics of storing information topographically rounds down to a very specific set of holographic implementations. Because all elements that connect, however indirectly, contain information about each other (as one can see from the possibility of inference; an object's status contains information about everything with which it has interacted) and the gestalt of information in a body is what constitutes an image, every image is an image of the whole. What you're talking about is the state of nature where the seer and the seen become one, but to say that you can't find it in the world is misleading. To quote the yoga sutras:

"Yoga is quieting down the turnings of perception
Then the seer comes to stand apart in the form of itself"

The turnings are our rotation; the production of content in the microcosm - information. Take away that information and you have the image (form) of the seer - but still the image of the all.

solomon levi
12-08-2012, 04:04 PM
But i haven't said you can't find it in the world.
I said you can't see the universe/infinity.

I think you've taken it out of context.
III said, "Let's say that we voyage together to the chamber in which the entire creation can be seen as a crystal clear drop of water as EJ Gold describes it."
III and I were also discussing whether "creation" and "universe" were synonymous.

Does it make sense now?
Let's say III sees the 16 dimensional drop... which dimension is he seeing it from?
How is he outside of the universe/infinity/the all, etc?

I'm just saying you can't be outside of infinity/universe in order to see it.
There is no outside of infinity.

I do not believe I have said the things you are arguing.

The key word in all of this is UNIverse. People seem to think the universe is a thing.
There is no thingness to infinity. All things are defined by borders - infinity has none.
Infinity cannot be a hologram. The hologram appears/coarises with things.

I get holograms. I read holographic universe ages ago, and karl pribram and David Bohm...
I'm just saying holograms are associated with things, not infinity.

Yes - you said "topographically". Infinity has no topography. :)
That doesn't mean the holographic model doesn't work.
I'm saying it works on everything but infinity, which is not a thing.

Image is another very significant word which does not apply to infinity, but does to holograms.
God/infinity has no image. Holograms are images.

lwowl
12-08-2012, 09:51 PM
Solomon:
["We are perceivers" = the eye of God.
The totality of oneself = the universe/infinity.
The two rings of power are the same as Boehme sees in the above diagram I presented.
"Böhme explained that the divine eye, a circle, must be split into two and the two resulting arcs placed back to back and rotated in opposite directions."
0 = 8; 8 = 0. Nothing is Infinity. Emptiness is Fullness/Pleroma.
Emptiness/0 is form/8, form is emptiness.

I'm really sorry. This is frustrating. If math is so complicated that one doesn't mean one anymore,
then please throw your math away.]


“Nothing” is “Unconscious/Unknown.” Nothing is “No Thing.” It is not infinity. Infinity is a “Thing,” so are emptiness, fullness, Pleroma and form. They are constructs of the “Tonal.” Nothing is “Nagual.”

I wish to share with you the Nature of the Universe Alchemical Number Theory Equations that you may ponder what you are; what you are not and where you may be. (You plural). Unfortunately this forum board does not allow the use of exponents in math formulations.

So all I can say here is:

Things are there when you observe them and not there when you don’t observe them: Information System Cosmos (order). Otherwise everything ever observed would be observed continuously: IS (information system) Chaos (disorder). The latter is when "Shit Happens."

lwowl

Bel Matina
12-09-2012, 02:24 AM
I think we're understanding each other, though the nature of our topic doesn't lend itself to linearity or proofs, and so there's a danger of seizing on contradictions in the examples we give and losing the nature of our disagreement in perspectives. Still, the disagreement does seem to persist, and so I propose we continue working to resolve it: the outcome should be edifying for all of us.

Everything that can be seen is an image. All that we know is from what we see. Is there something outside that image, producing it? The 'yes' to this question is the fundament of the position of dualism, and I think both of us would agree that the art does not support that.

But our experience suggests to us that there is something beyond what we see. We encounter fragmentary images that resolve to form a greater whole. This shows us that some parts of the image can be 'dark', beyond our vision, and yet still be part of what we see. Conveniently, we find that the image we see carries an image of itself as a chain of variation, and find that the light seems to center on a particular location within the image, which we identify as 'self'. We find that this location is not unique; we find many locations within our image which resemble (take the form of; constitute an image of) where we find the light collects. I'm not aware of a convincing idea of what defines what light we see, unsurprising since by definition we see only one such boundary, which makes it hard to make generalizations. The paradox of nonduality, that the image we see which encompasses everything can have parts we can't see, is certainly not a easy matter to resolve. The resolution I find comes out in the nature of holograms, which as I said ends up being synonymous with the nature of images. When part of the image is obscure to us, we still see all of it, but with limited resolution, as if in low light or from far away. I identify rotation as the mechanism relevant to this, which a mathematician would call permutation.

For more on that, see my sig.

lwowl
12-09-2012, 06:28 PM
Greetings Bel Matina and All,


I think we're understanding each other, though the nature of our topic doesn't lend itself to linearity or proofs, and so there's a danger of seizing on contradictions in the examples we give and losing the nature of our disagreement in perspectives. Still, the disagreement does seem to persist, and so I propose we continue working to resolve it: the outcome should be edifying for all of us.

Well said. I think the disagreement comes from each of us being a spark or scintilla of the brilliant mysterious paradoxical Creation. We are all individual scintillations in the greater I/eye, so our perceptions are each unique and yet an integral part of the whole.


Everything that can be seen is an image. All that we know is from what we see. Is there something outside that image, producing it? The 'yes' to this question is the fundament of the position of dualism, and I think both of us would agree that the art does not support that.

It can only be supported thru Paradox. The Point, the Scintillae and the Paradox are fundamentals of Alchemy. Point of view is at the center of disagreements.


But our experience suggests to us that there is something beyond what we see. We encounter fragmentary images that resolve to form a greater whole. This shows us that some parts of the image can be 'dark', beyond our vision, and yet still be part of what we see. Conveniently, we find that the image we see carries an image of itself as a chain of variation, and find that the light seems to center on a particular location within the image, which we identify as 'self'. We find that this location is not unique; we find many locations within our image which resemble (take the form of; constitute an image of) where we find the light collects. I'm not aware of a convincing idea of what defines what light we see, unsurprising since by definition we see only one such boundary, which makes it hard to make generalizations. The paradox of nonduality, that the image we see which encompasses everything can have parts we can't see, is certainly not a easy matter to resolve. The resolution I find comes out in the nature of holograms, which as I said ends up being synonymous with the nature of images. When part of the image is obscure to us, we still see all of it, but with limited resolution, as if in low light or from far away. I identify rotation as the mechanism relevant to this, which a mathematician would call permutation.

The image of the Creation you paint is profound. The resolution I have found also centers on light/image. Light is the First Matter, the Prima Matera. Light is imagination, the pure information that is at once Chaos and Cosmos: the first emanation from the Great Mystery at the core. Light is Intelligence in a scintillation surrounding Nothing at its central Point.


For more on that, see my sig.

How true. Great Poem.

lwowl

solomon levi
12-10-2012, 04:56 AM
“Nothing” is “Unconscious/Unknown.” Nothing is “No Thing.” It is not infinity. Infinity is a “Thing,” so are emptiness, fullness, Pleroma and form. They are constructs of the “Tonal.” Nothing is “Nagual.”

I wish to share with you the Nature of the Universe Alchemical Number Theory Equations that you may ponder what you are; what you are not and where you may be. (You plural). Unfortunately this forum board does not allow the use of exponents in math formulations.

So all I can say here is:
Things are there when you observe them and not there when you don’t observe them: Information System Cosmos (order). Otherwise everything ever observed would be observed continuously: IS (information system) Chaos (disorder). The latter is when "Shit Happens."

lwowl


I don't know what to say. Infinity has no boundaries to define it like things do. Infinity is boundless.
Things are defined by their boundaries. Infinity, having no boundaries, is not defined as a thing.
It is not defined, period.

define (v.)
late 14c., "to specify; to end," from O.Fr. defenir "to end, terminate, determine," and directly from L. definire "to limit, determine, explain," from de- "completely" (see de-) + finire "to bound, limit," from finis "boundary, end"
infinite (adj.)
late 14c., "eternal, limitless," also "extremely great in number," from O.Fr. infinit "endless, boundless," and directly from L. infinitus "unbounded, unlimited," from in- "not, opposite of" (see in- (1)) + finitus "defining, definite," from finis "end"

I don't know what could be clearer.
Sorry if you don't see it.
To take that one phrase without all that context I gave it...

Nothing is Nagual and both of those are also infinity.
To call it infinity doesn't make it a thing any more than calling it Nagual does.

Nothing is not the unknown. The unknown can become known.
Nothing/Infinity is the unknowable. Infinity can never become known, simply
because it is not a thing and has no boundaries/limits/defining characteristics -
it's characteristic is to be unlimited, but that doesn't define it but rather tells us
what it isn't - it isn't limited. We still can never hold an image of infinity in our minds
like we can with any thing.

"Things are there when you observe them and not there when you don’t observe them: Information System Cosmos (order). Otherwise everything ever observed would be observed continuously: IS (information system) Chaos (disorder). The latter is when "Shit Happens.""

Yes, I understand that. I said myself that if there were such a thing as an absolute we would be forced to
see it all the time, otherwise it is not absolute. There is something we are forced to see all the time - ourselves:
Youniverse.

solomon levi
12-10-2012, 05:34 AM
Hi Bel Matina.

I think you are starting a completely different conversation.
We agree on holograms. The only point we didn't find agreement in is that the
universe isn't a hologram. In other words, we haven't agreed on the definition
of universe. Most people seem to think the universe is a thing. That is not
what I call universe. The universe is infinity and infinity is not a thing. It is
Ain Soph, but that doesn't really help either.

The proof is very simple. Infinity is endless, without limit/borders.
Things have borders, are defined, distinct entities.

What I call universe is not a bunch of galaxies/things. It is infinity.
I call it that because that is its word - UNIverse. A bunch of galaxies or things
is not UNI/oneness - the law of one. Of course the many is the one but that
would really confuse our efforts to communicate.

No one is discussing this when I bring it up. Everyone is dodging around it. Why?
UNIverse - Oneverse. In order to talk about ONE, the only word that fits - the only
"thing" which is not a thing, is infinity. Infinity is one.
Tell me something else that is one that isn't just some synonym for infinity, like
Nagual, nothing, absolute...
A hologram is not one. A hologram requires reflection to be produced - it requires
more than one. Infinity is not a hologram. Things are holograms because every
"thing" is really a relationship of more than one "thing".
We could agree that there are no things at all in the universe. But I will not agree
that the universe is a thing, for the reasons/proofs that I have already given multiple times
and no one has adressed. lwowl made an indirect attempt. Why won't won't anyone do
it directly? Because you will fail - you will agree with me if you are direct as I am.

No one can argue this with me if they don't know what One is. One is not a composite -
it is homogeneous. The idea of the UNIverse being space with galaxies and dust etc. is
not homogeneous. Simple, right? Where the hell are you people?
I can only posit that I am being direct and you guys are not. You are thinking and I
am looking/seeing.

I don't think when i see universe. Universe is UNIverse. I am not allowed to ignore that
and invent my own definitions. When I look at One, there is only one One. I don't invent it.
I don't guess or speculate or theorise or complicate it or mystify it. Nothing finite can be the One.
This is so obvious. And there is only one Infinite, but we can call it many things. Forget the
names and just LOOK/see it. It is without end. I cannot see it with eyes, as if i am separate
from it. I mean "see", Castaneda style. I mean direct perception - gnosis. I AM Infinity. If you
know what Infinity is, you know that "I" am not "I"/me, this writer. Only the Infinite "I"/1/One
can "see" Infinity.

If i have confused things by saying "see", I am sorry. But I've defined this many times. I can't
keep defining it every time - well, I don't want to. I am a seer. Does anyone think that means I look
separately with my eyes??? from the outside???

In Ramtha school we called this separate looking "binary mind" and we called direct knowing, oneness,
"analogical mind" because you become one with the object of your meditation/contemplation.
These are true human dimensions, not mental dimensions. Dimensions of consciousness, or as
Castaneda called them, first attention/binary mind and second attention/analogical mind.
One cannot begin to know 12 or 5 or 16 dimensions without entering the second attention, which
requires us not to think but to "see", just as Krishnamurti elaborated on as well.

So far, anyone who has argued this has ignored my proofs and tried to come from some other angle.
Why? Be direct.

Anyway, until this is resolved, I don't want to start more conversations as if they are resolving this.
We can start them separately, leaving this unresolved, if you want.

solomon levi
12-10-2012, 05:55 AM
lwowl said, "point of view is at the center of disagreements."

Precisely. Infinity is the only "non-thing" that is not a point of view.
That is as objective as we can be.
Infinity/Oneness is the resolution of all disagreements.

How is this not math? It is simple, direct.
If you guys can talk all these maths and not see this, I wonder what your learning has done to you.
Keep it simple.
I don't mean that - be as complicated as you like.
But i don't need to learn calculus or whatever to see the universe.
If these "complications" are fun, enjoy.
But they are not the simplest way to communicate.

Nice to touch back on topic more directly.

III
12-10-2012, 08:16 AM
lwowl said, "point of view is at the center of disagreements."


Precisely. Infinity is the only "non-thing" that is not a point of view.
That is as objective as we can be.
Infinity/Oneness is the resolution of all disagreements.

How is this not math? It is simple, direct.
If you guys can talk all these maths and not see this, I wonder what your learning has done to you.
Keep it simple.
I don't mean that - be as complicated as you like.
But i don't need to learn calculus or whatever to see the universe.
If these "complications" are fun, enjoy.
But they are not the simplest way to communicate.

Nice to touch back on topic more directly.

Hi Solomon,

I was trying to convey a concept, two concepts for that mattter. However they both come down to there are a wide variety of ways to see things and I was trying to give a concept as a means to approach certain ideas. It is really much easier to go to such places than dto describe them. I saw them and wondered about them for years. Then I read descriptions in a couple of EJ Gold's books about 20 years ago. He greatly aided my understanding. In any case I was attempting to convey how to start perceiving the dimensions of which I speak and go to certain chambers. I've taught a fair number of folks how to see these dimensions and work with them.

One needs no math at all to say change the form of a problem you can't solve to one that you can solve. I was making an example of a specific situation. And everybody practical solves the Hero's paradox.

So let's say that a person solves the maze sufficienctly to go to any number of chambers in common with any number of people. And this is the whole point, one way or another, of invocational circles, group meditations, shamanic groups and the like. Then the person can move around in given area and compare notes with others and be in similar chambers, though each experience will differ despite the same or close by chamber, and learn from each other.

And voyaging with somebody to a chamber and being able to agree on what is there is as close to objective as I can see a way to get.

solomon levi
12-10-2012, 11:42 AM
As Castaneda's don Juan said, agreement makes reality.
But agreement doesn't make objectivity.

I could teach people to agree that III is an idiot, and i would find some who agree.
You could do the same about me. That doesn't make it objective.

A lot of "Castanedists" believed that seeing means to see luminous eggs and white filaments of light.
But don Juan described that before CC ever saw it - he was taught to see it. White fibers are just one level of seeing.
I was taught to see 7 different levels of the EM spectrum. The fibers are white only in visible light - they're
blue/uv in ultraviolet. They're gold colored in x-ray and rose colored in gamma. None of the "Castanedists"
would listen to me. They believed that white filaments of light was an objective description, but anyone
reading the books knows that don Juan described them that way before CC saw them himself, so he
saw what he was taught - just as we are all domesticated as children to see what we are told.
Some "Castanedists" also think that the sorcerers' description is objective. It is simply a description to pit
against the old one in order to break our conviction that our description of reality is the only one.
The sorcerers' description is still a description, one among billions. But the books didn't tell us that
in bold print, so a lot of people misunderstood/believed.Don Juan also talks about "energetic facts"
and people think these are objective. I know/was taught 7 levels of consciousness and energy, so for
me each one is more objective than the one below/slower frequency/denser vibration. These 7 levels
come out of the 8th which is not a level. The 8th is the void/infinity... "one vast nothing materially but
all things potentially". The reason no one can give a really conclusive answer to how the void became
something, or how something came from the void, is because it didn't happen in linear time and thus
cannot be explained. So we say things like, "the void contemplated itself or became self aware", "the
great unconscious became conscious of itself", or "a light appeared in the darkness"...

The second attention is relatively objective compared to the first attention.
There is a third attention that is more objective than the second. That's as far as don Juan knew, the
books claim.

Anyway, it seems obvious that only the Source can be called objective/absolute. Everything else is
relatively objective because everything else is not this One infinite no-thing. People argue over
whether we can know this Source or not. We can't - it is the unknowable. We can infer it and
be certain of it because we exist. Man is so proud he doesn't like to hear that there is something
(some no-thing) that he cannot know. I used to feel that way decades ago. But through experience
I know that I lose "the knower" long before I approach infinity - I lose it when I step out of the
ego/tonal/first attention/binary mind - the 3 lowest levels of hertzian, infrared and visible light;
the three lower chakras. If people understood why visible light becomes visible, they would know.
It isn't just coincidence that we physically see this level. We see as we think and we think as we see
when we identify with the apparent separate ego self. We live in a box, a closed system, a dimension -
the hermetically sealed flask of the first attention. You have to break the vessel to get the stone out.
There is no thinking your way out of it.

I haven't read enough of E.J. Gold, but I was interested enough to collect his books and i read some of
the "biological machine" and the "book of the dead". I don't read books much anymore, but maybe I'll
get around to it. The only reason for me to read books now is to communicate with others in different
languages/syntax. Books still give me "aha"s, but they are just ahas on elaborating what i already know
differently.
I am the Youniverse. Whatever I want to know, I only need ask. I don't have any impulse to know 16
dimensions right now, or to learn chinese or how to make a quiche. :) Nothing personal.
But I will try to read some more Gold.
I have complicated sides too - my Qabala and gematria and etymology and CC syntax and EM spectrum
and Sanskrit, quantum mechanics... etc. Alchemy is complicated to those who don't speak it, as is non-duality
to a dual mind. But non-duality I find the simplest, because it deals with THIS and no minds/abstractions.
It "eliminates the superfluous, adding nothing." as alchemy teaches. It is homogeneous. Everyone has
a body - that's all you need. But instead we are trapped in mental psychological inventions.
Don Juan said seeing is done with the whole body, not the eyes.
Jung speaks of integration.
Krishnamurti speaks of total attention.
Alchemy speaks of homogeneous water.
Christianity speaks of the only begotten son.
Etc.

Anyway, Gold was perhaps most helpful for you, and Nonduality was the glue
that brought Castaneda, Gurdjieff, Ramtha and Alchemy together for me.
But who knows - maybe it was really timing.
Or maybe it was grace.
Or the sum total of everything accumulated up to the point of realisation.


There is a direct path and a long route.
There are lots of things to explore or be "distracted" by.
It is my advice, following advice given to me, that you take the direct path first
and then if you want to explore you can go back, with sobriety.
If the long route is your path, it can be very, very, very long, because so many
things are fascinating - dimensions, OBEs, aliens, demons and angels, powers, etc.
Seek first the kingdom of heaven, and all these shall be added unto you.
If you seek these things before the kingdom, your time is exponentially lengthened.
But it's no big deal. What is time relative to infinity?
I really have no preference of what anyone else wants to do.
I'm just trying to report as objectively as possible at any moment.
One way isn't better than another.
I could say one way is shorter than another - that doesn't mean that option
is available to every one at any time. This is why alchemy speaks about timing
and seasons and astrology in association with the initial subject and when best
to "collect" it.

Bel Matina
12-10-2012, 05:20 PM
I've said before that history is myth subjected to peer review, and this is no less true on a day-to-day basis.

We live our myths, and subject them to the criticism of those around us, and vice versa. Through this we come to live a shared myth, and the possibilities of both are multiplied. This shared myth, this 'objectivity' is useful for sure, but it doesn't tell us much about the nature of its parents.

I think your point about the equivalency of descriptions is important, and everyone should read it carefully. But it's unhelpful to leave it at that the source is unknowable. I disagree, in a sense, but I don't this it would be particularly edifying for us to bicker over the precise scope of 'knowing'. Knowing the stone may come from stripping away all other knowledge, and there may be as many paths to that as facets of the stone, but it is not in my experience that any such path amounts to a simple jump to the root. As one expands to two, two to three etc. there is an arc downward that must be followed. If you manage to go right to zero, skipping one, you lose the particular; if you get to one, skipping zero, you lose the infinite. Querents need to be guided by the hand, or there's really no use talking about it. There path may seem meaninglessly circuitous, but do either of us claim to have fathomed all the mysteries of the One Thing? Their road may have some purpose. More than that, not everyone is suited to join the fraternity; some people will be happier just praising the lord. Bhakti yoga is still yoga.

lwowl
12-10-2012, 06:13 PM
Solomon:
[I don't know what to say. Infinity has no boundaries to define it like things do. Infinity is boundless.
Things are defined by their boundaries. Infinity, having no boundaries, is not defined as a thing.
It is not defined, period.]

Infinity is a “thing” because you can categorize it and name it; give it endless parameters with logic, reason, and proportion. You can conceive of it and perceive hierarchies of endless patterns between order and chaos in the Infinity. There are three well known hierarchies of infinity: infinitely large, infinitely small, and infinitely complex. To say the Universe is infinite is not the same as infinity = universe.

Solomon:
[define (v.)
late 14c., "to specify; to end," from O.Fr. defenir "to end, terminate, determine," and directly from L. definire "to limit, determine, explain," from de- "completely" (see de-) + finire "to bound, limit," from finis "boundary, end"
infinite (adj.)
late 14c., "eternal, limitless," also "extremely great in number," from O.Fr. infinit "endless, boundless," and directly from L. infinitus "unbounded, unlimited," from in- "not, opposite of" (see in- (1)) + finitus "defining, definite," from finis "end"

I don't know what could be clearer.
Sorry if you don't see it.
To take that one phrase without all that context I gave it...

Nothing is Nagual and both of those are also infinity.
To call it infinity doesn't make it a thing any more than calling it Nagual does.]

The Tonal is everything you can put on the table including the table. Infinity is on the table. Anything you can come up with is on the table. When you look at it, it is there; when you don’t, its gone. Everything is on the table: Nothing is left: Nagual. The Universe: allthingness and nothingness, Tonal and Nagual. This is the Great Paradox of Alchemy.

Solomon:
[Nothing is not the unknown. The unknown can become known.
Nothing/Infinity is the unknowable. Infinity can never become known, simply
because it is not a thing and has no boundaries/limits/defining characteristics -
it's characteristic is to be unlimited, but that doesn't define it but rather tells us
what it isn't - it isn't limited. We still can never hold an image of infinity in our minds
like we can with any thing.]

Nothing is “unconscious (to us) and unknown (unknowable). Unconscious and unknown are concepts we use to attempt to discuss the Paradoxicality of “Nothing.” The unknown and the known are infinite in the infinite universe. The known condenses from the unknown as an alchemical distillate. Chaos in unlimited so is the Cosmos of pattern that resides within it.

["Things are there when you observe them and not there when you don’t observe them: Information System Cosmos (order). Otherwise everything ever observed would be observed continuously: IS (information system) Chaos (disorder). The latter is when "Shit Happens.""

Yes, I understand that. I said myself that if there were such a thing as an absolute we would be forced to
see it all the time, otherwise it is not absolute. There is something we are forced to see all the time - ourselves:
Youniverse.]

The Relative and the Absolute are qualities of the Universe. If you want to see It All you can: Transcendent Chaos. The Youniverse is your (singular and plural) consciousness and unconsciousness.

lwowl

solomon levi
12-10-2012, 07:28 PM
Oh, let's try it!
The darkness/nothing/unconscious became self-aware and light/something/consciousness began.
We are consciousness. "God"/Source/the infinite no-thing gave birth to this only-begotten son
called consciousness. Then consciousness created everything else, all the levels and dimensions
and creation... we created all this "in God's image", that is, through the same method - becoming
self-aware, contemplating ourselves. God doesn't have a plan for us. God's work is done as soon
as it became conscious. Consciousness is able to plan. Unconsciousness is not.
Anyway, to the point... Consciousness can't know unconsciousness without becoming unconscious
again, and unconsciousness is not a knower - ergo, the source cannot be known.

This is the story I have known for a while, but I am starting to question it. It still seems kind of linear.
The Ouroboros is not linear. As I said somewhere, the center of the magnet is the true source and not
the poles. This would mean that light and darkness come from something else and would make the above
story inaccurate. Instead of superior abyss and inferior abyss coming together to create abyssum duplicatum,
perhaps abyssum duplicatum creates superior and inferior abysses. I think this is more alchemically correct.

With the above story, we have the void contemplating itself and expanding into light/consciousness and then
consciousness descends/incarnates into matter from cosmic rays through gamma, x-ray, uv, visible, infrared
and hertzian.
But I think it more alchemical that the head bites the tail where infinite slowness and infinite fastness become one.
Thus it would make sense that creation came from both directions instead of from fast to slow, subtle to dense,
one direction.
If this is so, one still could not know the source because there is no source to a circle. As we enter the singularity
we would move right out of the black hole into a white hole (or vice-versa, depending on our approach). Wouldn't we?
Maybe not. Maybe there is a pause or timeless "station" in the center. I don't know.

This brings up an interesting "problem" I've contemplated. What usually passes as spirituality is the path of return -
we are going back to where we came from. But what about going forward into something we've never been?
I mean, going back, but consciously, is something we haven't been, as we "came down" somewhat unconsciously,
not yet knowing what "down" would be (this being that first story I reported).
But an option is to continue in the same manner we have been (as reported in my blog) - small things dream larger
things... atoms make molecules, molecules make dna, dna makes plants and animals and humans, humans can become
aware that they have dna and manipulate it, humans make communities, or, according to Castaneda and "the rule",
they make sorcerer parties that can do what one alone cannot do (why solar/christ figures always have 12 disciples -
though in Castaneda, the number of a party is:
"While in the world, the minimal number under a Nagual's leadership is sixteen: eight female warriors, four male warriors,
counting the Nagual, and four couriers. At the moment of leaving the world, when the new Nagual woman is with them,
the Nagual's number is seventeen. If his personal power permits him to have more warriors, then more must be added in
multiples of four.")
Anyway, the idea is that certain numbers of certain types create certain larger entities, just as 64 codons of dna or
79 electrons makes gold. I haven't read it myself, but i was told that Robert Monroe mentioned something about kindred
souls/spirits that are waiting for incarnated people to evolve to a point where they can join the group of disincarnated
beings and the whole group together can then go to a next level.
So all that points to going further forward rather than returning. Or returning by going forward instead of backward
in the Ouroboros.
Hope that wasn't too confusing.

solomon levi
12-10-2012, 09:35 PM
I do appreciate your continued efforts to explain and find commonality lwowl. :)
Even if I disagree.



Infinity is a “thing” because you can categorize it and name it; give it endless parameters with logic, reason, and proportion. You can conceive of it and perceive hierarchies of endless patterns between order and chaos in the Infinity. There are three well known hierarchies of infinity: infinitely large, infinitely small, and infinitely complex. To say the Universe is infinite is not the same as infinity = universe.


I disagree. We can conceive of the idea of infinity, but we cannot make an image of it in our minds. These are very different 'animals'.
What we can do IN the Infinity says nothing about the Infinity, just as the sum of parts doesn't make the whole.
EveryTHING is in the Infinity. That doesn't make Infinity a thing.
Infinitely large and infinitely small are the same thing: un-image-inable. We can conceive that the idea exists, but have no image of it.
To the last sentence above - explain why. Anyone can make any statement. Where is your proofs/evidence/arguments? I have given mine.



The Tonal is everything you can put on the table including the table. Infinity is on the table. Anything you can come up with is on the table. When you look at it, it is there; when you don’t, its gone. Everything is on the table: Nothing is left: Nagual. The Universe: allthingness and nothingness, Tonal and Nagual. This is the Great Paradox of Alchemy.


Where are your proofs/arguments? Why is infinity on the table? Just cause you say so?
Just cause the letters don't spell NAGUAL? Nagual isn't on the table but it is named and conceived, obviously.
What is the difference?
Nothing is left - agreed! Infinity is not a thing, as i have explained - not just stated.



Nothing is “unconscious (to us) and unknown (unknowable). Unconscious and unknown are concepts we use to attempt to discuss the Paradoxicality of “Nothing.” The unknown and the known are infinite in the infinite universe. The known condenses from the unknown as an alchemical distillate. Chaos in unlimited so is the Cosmos of pattern that resides within it.


Unknown and unknowable are different. It makes no sense to me to say unknown and follow it with unknowable in parenthesis.
Unless you were making a correction to a quote. Surely you must distinguish them. The unknown can become known at some point.
The unknowable can never be known.
What you say above does not contradict or argue what i have said. All that can be true (or false) and my statement still be true.
Just because the known is infinite doesn't make the infinite known. Nor is either image-able.
Image is significant, as you must know from Gnosticism and even the Bible. The tonal is the image-able.
We can infer something without being able to image it. Whatever you ascribe infinite nature to is not image-able.
We can put the word "infinite" in front of anything known (infinite elbow, infinite corn...) So what? I've conceived
of infinite corn. I still can't image it. I can't even image with any clarity the room I'm in full of corn.
If I could imagine a galaxy of corn (which I cannot with any clarity), that is not one iota closer to infinity than the room was!
Don't you see that?! And you think that is the same as a cup or a plate or some item of the tonal?! Please!
There is nothing anyone can say that will make me believe they can image it. Call me closed-minded. :)



The Relative and the Absolute are qualities of the Universe. If you want to see It All you can: Transcendent Chaos. The Youniverse is your (singular and plural) consciousness and unconsciousness.
lwowl

These are statements. One can state anything. It's not a proper way to argue/debate.
I can state that you stole a million dollars from me. Does that make it true?
Back up your statements with proofs or evidence.
I understand that the relative is a quality of your definition of universe. But i already explained
how our definitions are different and how mine is based on etymology and simplicity and your
universe is not UNI. You ignore/don't argue that with any proofs or evidence. In a UNIverse
there is no relativity. There needs to be more than one to have relativity. It is mis-named
UNIverse if its quality is relativity/dualism. I won't say this again - I will "assume" that you are
unable or unwilling to hear and communicate (it won't be an assumption). :)

III
12-11-2012, 12:41 AM
As Castaneda's don Juan said, agreement makes reality.
But agreement doesn't make objectivity.

I could teach people to agree that III is an idiot, and i would find some who agree.
You could do the same about me. That doesn't make it objective.

A lot of "Castanedists" believed that seeing means to see luminous eggs and white filaments of light.
But don Juan described that before CC ever saw it - he was taught to see it. White fibers are just one level of seeing.
I was taught to see 7 different levels of the EM spectrum. The fibers are white only in visible light - they're
blue/uv in ultraviolet. They're gold colored in x-ray and rose colored in gamma. None of the "Castanedists"
would listen to me. They believed that white filaments of light was an objective description, but anyone
reading the books knows that don Juan described them that way before CC saw them himself, so he
saw what he was taught - just as we are all domesticated as children to see what we are told.
Some "Castanedists" also think that the sorcerers' description is objective. It is simply a description to pit
against the old one in order to break our conviction that our description of reality is the only one.
The sorcerers' description is still a description, one among billions. But the books didn't tell us that
in bold print, so a lot of people misunderstood/believed.Don Juan also talks about "energetic facts"
and people think these are objective. I know/was taught 7 levels of consciousness and energy, so for
me each one is more objective than the one below/slower frequency/denser vibration. These 7 levels
come out of the 8th which is not a level. The 8th is the void/infinity... "one vast nothing materially but
all things potentially". The reason no one can give a really conclusive answer to how the void became
something, or how something came from the void, is because it didn't happen in linear time and thus
cannot be explained. So we say things like, "the void contemplated itself or became self aware", "the
great unconscious became conscious of itself", or "a light appeared in the darkness"...

The second attention is relatively objective compared to the first attention.
There is a third attention that is more objective than the second. That's as far as don Juan knew, the
books claim.

Anyway, it seems obvious that only the Source can be called objective/absolute. Everything else is
relatively objective because everything else is not this One infinite no-thing. People argue over
whether we can know this Source or not. We can't - it is the unknowable. We can infer it and
be certain of it because we exist. Man is so proud he doesn't like to hear that there is something
(some no-thing) that he cannot know. I used to feel that way decades ago. But through experience
I know that I lose "the knower" long before I approach infinity - I lose it when I step out of the
ego/tonal/first attention/binary mind - the 3 lowest levels of hertzian, infrared and visible light;
the three lower chakras. If people understood why visible light becomes visible, they would know.
It isn't just coincidence that we physically see this level. We see as we think and we think as we see
when we identify with the apparent separate ego self. We live in a box, a closed system, a dimension -
the hermetically sealed flask of the first attention. You have to break the vessel to get the stone out.
There is no thinking your way out of it.

I haven't read enough of E.J. Gold, but I was interested enough to collect his books and i read some of
the "biological machine" and the "book of the dead". I don't read books much anymore, but maybe I'll
get around to it. The only reason for me to read books now is to communicate with others in different
languages/syntax. Books still give me "aha"s, but they are just ahas on elaborating what i already know
differently.
I am the Youniverse. Whatever I want to know, I only need ask. I don't have any impulse to know 16
dimensions right now, or to learn chinese or how to make a quiche. :) Nothing personal.
But I will try to read some more Gold.
I have complicated sides too - my Qabala and gematria and etymology and CC syntax and EM spectrum
and Sanskrit, quantum mechanics... etc. Alchemy is complicated to those who don't speak it, as is non-duality
to a dual mind. But non-duality I find the simplest, because it deals with THIS and no minds/abstractions.
It "eliminates the superfluous, adding nothing." as alchemy teaches. It is homogeneous. Everyone has
a body - that's all you need. But instead we are trapped in mental psychological inventions.
Don Juan said seeing is done with the whole body, not the eyes.
Jung speaks of integration.
Krishnamurti speaks of total attention.
Alchemy speaks of homogeneous water.
Christianity speaks of the only begotten son.
Etc.

Anyway, Gold was perhaps most helpful for you, and Nonduality was the glue
that brought Castaneda, Gurdjieff, Ramtha and Alchemy together for me.
But who knows - maybe it was really timing.
Or maybe it was grace.
Or the sum total of everything accumulated up to the point of realisation.


There is a direct path and a long route.
There are lots of things to explore or be "distracted" by.
It is my advice, following advice given to me, that you take the direct path first
and then if you want to explore you can go back, with sobriety.
If the long route is your path, it can be very, very, very long, because so many
things are fascinating - dimensions, OBEs, aliens, demons and angels, powers, etc.
Seek first the kingdom of heaven, and all these shall be added unto you.
If you seek these things before the kingdom, your time is exponentially lengthened.
But it's no big deal. What is time relative to infinity?
I really have no preference of what anyone else wants to do.
I'm just trying to report as objectively as possible at any moment.
One way isn't better than another.
I could say one way is shorter than another - that doesn't mean that option
is available to every one at any time. This is why alchemy speaks about timing
and seasons and astrology in association with the initial subject and when best
to "collect" it.


Hi Solomon,

I think perhaps a difference is in our learning. I learned in the context of others learning the same thing, of having an actual lineage of teachers that says "yes" the student has reached xxx level of accomplishment in metaphysics and has learned how to go to the usual assortment of places that the student is going to have a certain corriculum and certain core of skills and experiences. The teaching of the lineage wasn't in this life but I did re-connect to it. So I carry and pass on the unspoken teachings of a long line. These are not belief system pseudo teachings. It is not philosophy though of course when one deals with practical matters of how to perceive and get around in the Labyrinth a certain amount of philosophy might come into it.

So lot's of people have an experience at death, some remember these, some don't. The ones remembering and coming back to "report" it, and I have worked with a number of people brought to me after such experiences, they almost always have some variation on the "not your time" or "work to do" or some other reason for coming back into the same life. This archetype is so common it has become a cultural icon and even a joke. Is that experience, getting close to the objective? Or is that as you seem to have indicated "reality" that is agreed upon. As things that work at one level work similarly at higher levels, as above, so below etc.

I had an experience one time of finding myself in a strange feeling body. It felt cylindrical. After a bit I "saw" an image of a dolphin body as a series of "electromagnetic" currents in the nerves. It was a virtual image of the entire body perceived from inside the body which had no physcial reality in front of my eyes. On other occasions I have seen such overlays on "my" energy body as the neuro pattern of blockages and pain with causes attached to all the pains etc.

So perceiving a vitural image even of the entire creation presents no philosophical clash to me. So whether it is perceiving the creation as a clear drop of water or as a constantly blooming and then wilting image of creation or even as the fundamental LOGOS. I don't have any philosophy I might have read saying "you can't do that". If I had believed that every time I heard it I would be long dead, or something like that. Of course I am long dead, but didn't stay that way I suppose, such is reality. If I had believed all those telling me it's impossible I would have not been able to learn what I have or to teach it. I only teach what I can do, and provide what theory and hypotheses as I can. I can do and teach it much more easily than I can describe it. I don't adopt all sorts of reasons why I can't do it.

As the creation and the Absolute can evolve as things change within the infinite internal fractioning of the creation, I would expect there to be a great deal of philosophizing about this and what is "objective" espeically if it can change and then always was and always will be until it changes again. There is no way to prove it though it can occasionally be observed.

So then, are you saying that the only perceivable objective "thing" is the void?"

I suspect that having/perceiving consciousness is objective. Meaning and all that would be subjective. Somewhere in that subjectivity we have a mix of reality and imagination, or so I would think. "I think, therefore I AM". Maybe a better statement of that is "I AM, therefore I think."

As far as the eternal bliss dive into the Absolute as suggested by some, perhaps isn't all it is cracked up to be. Maybe it doesn't perform quite as expected, as hypothecized. So one leaves the body in extreme bliss and goes into eternal state. And absolutely nothing happens no matter how long one stays in said eternal bliss state. And there one sits in frozen tableau outside the dead body, forever and ever and ever. Now that isn't how that story is usually told. So what is "objective" vs "subjective". So we have the lesser mysteries, the mysteries of life and death. What is illusion? What is Real? Is any of it objective? We have consciousness. Is that the limit of what is objective?

III
12-11-2012, 02:49 AM
I do appreciate your continued efforts to explain and find commonality lwowl. :)

Even if I disagree.

I disagree. We can conceive of the idea of infinity, but we cannot make an image of it in our minds. These are very different 'animals'.
What we can do IN the Infinity says nothing about the Infinity, just as the sum of parts doesn't make the whole.
EveryTHING is in the Infinity. That doesn't make Infinity a thing.
Infinitely large and infinitely small are the same thing: un-image-inable. We can conceive that the idea exists, but have no image of it.
To the last sentence above - explain why. Anyone can make any statement. Where is your proofs/evidence/arguments? I have given mine.



Where are your proofs/arguments? Why is infinity on the table? Just cause you say so?
Just cause the letters don't spell NAGUAL? Nagual isn't on the table but it is named and conceived, obviously.
What is the difference?
Nothing is left - agreed! Infinity is not a thing, as i have explained - not just stated.



Unknown and unknowable are different. It makes no sense to me to say unknown and follow it with unknowable in parenthesis.
Unless you were making a correction to a quote. Surely you must distinguish them. The unknown can become known at some point.
The unknowable can never be known.
What you say above does not contradict or argue what i have said. All that can be true (or false) and my statement still be true.
Just because the known is infinite doesn't make the infinite known. Nor is either image-able.
Image is significant, as you must know from Gnosticism and even the Bible. The tonal is the image-able.
We can infer something without being able to image it. Whatever you ascribe infinite nature to is not image-able.
We can put the word "infinite" in front of anything known (infinite elbow, infinite corn...) So what? I've conceived
of infinite corn. I still can't image it. I can't even image with any clarity the room I'm in full of corn.
If I could imagine a galaxy of corn (which I cannot with any clarity), that is not one iota closer to infinity than the room was!
Don't you see that?! And you think that is the same as a cup or a plate or some item of the tonal?! Please!
There is nothing anyone can say that will make me believe they can image it. Call me closed-minded. :)



These are statements. One can state anything. It's not a proper way to argue/debate.
I can state that you stole a million dollars from me. Does that make it true?
Back up your statements with proofs or evidence.
I understand that the relative is a quality of your definition of universe. But i already explained
how our definitions are different and how mine is based on etymology and simplicity and your
universe is not UNI. You ignore/don't argue that with any proofs or evidence. In a UNIverse
there is no relativity. There needs to be more than one to have relativity. It is mis-named
UNIverse if its quality is relativity/dualism. I won't say this again - I will "assume" that you are
unable or unwilling to hear and communicate (it won't be an assumption). :)


Hi Solomon,

So, infinity is on the table. Infinity is another black box object. Now if we consider a 16 (or 21) or some other number of dimensions, with each dimension being an "amount of a charactersitic" from negative infinite to positive infinite. So each noticable change, and some changes are so small as to not be noticable and some so large that they appear to be a complete difference rather than an incremental change, extends indefinitely and is infinitely subdivided as well. However, as each dimension is limited to a single parameter being changed, by stacking dimensions, multiple characteristics change. When one is familiar with the type of change and how it relates to magnitude of the type of change related to that dimension, then when that person has it "nailed" as to how a magintude change in that dimension works, then the person can "jaunt" to anywhere along that dimensional axis as long as the others remain the same. It's an "object" at the same time it is no thing. There is nothing at all limiting an object to non-infinite. So in a 16 dimension system then, movement can be in one dimension at a time. Each one alone, makes a discernable type of change that increases is some kind of linkage to the dimensional characteristic. It gets very much more complex to undestand 2 or 3 or 10 at a time. However, in adjusting one at a time, using a lugnut type pattern, balance can be adjusted by tweaking each dimension separately. That's is why it is useful to an alchemist. It allows us to change ourselves, to grow and change balance in a predictable way.


You may have beliefs that keep you from dealing with infinite characteristics, but that is not a limitation of the system itself. There may indeed be a lot more than 16 or 17 or 21 or whatever dimensions, however in building our inner model we need to be able to identify some energy that makes a difference in a very specific way to map it to another dimension. The limits of the labyrinth that we can access are set by each of us. That doesn't mean that anybody else is limited in the same ways. Also, you may have found some dimensions that I can't access or I may have found some you haven't found yet which alters our understandings in ways not familiar to each other. It may be that "KNOW THY SELF" may be simpler and/or more complicated that either of us thinks. Infinte in multiple dimensions gets complicated. And yet, you and I each contain infinite copies of the infinite fractal of creation. We are all and each God and have the same everything at our roots and available to each one of us. You and I am (intentional singular) each no less infinite than the creation. How much of it each of us can use is a different matter.

And whether it is 8 women and 2 sets of 4 men of different characteristics or 16 women and one male or whatever combinations you choose to ennumerate each one will be different. The same configuration won't ever be the same twice. Each instance is unique. Even in so simple a configuration as 2, myself and my partner, nothing is ever the same twice.

lwowl
12-11-2012, 06:11 AM
Solomon:
[I do appreciate your continued efforts to explain and find commonality lwowl.
Even if I disagree.]

I’m glad you appreciate that.

Solomon:
[I disagree. We can conceive of the idea of infinity, but we cannot make an image of it in our minds. These are very different 'animals'.
Infinitely large and infinitely small are the same thing: un-image-inable. We can conceive that the idea exists, but have no image of it.]

I assume you speak only for yourself about those imaging difficulties. If you think infinity is hard to image try paradox.

Solomon:
[To the last sentence above - explain why. Anyone can make any statement. Where is your proofs/evidence/arguments? I have given mine.]

Do you really want me to explain the difference between “is” and “equals?”

Solomon:
[Where are your proofs/arguments? Why is infinity on the table? Just cause you say so?
Just cause the letters don't spell NAGUAL? Nagual isn't on the table but it is named and conceived, obviously.
What is the difference?
Nothing is left - agreed! Infinity is not a thing, as i have explained - not just stated.]

I don’t see any proof in your offer, but I try to respect your point of view. Anything you/me/we say/see/desire/do is on the table. So if Nothing is not left, then Nothing must be on the table. Right? Oxymoron: Paradox.
The “table” is a metaphor for universe.

Solomon:
[Unknown and unknowable are different. It makes no sense to me to say unknown and follow it with unknowable in parenthesis.
Unless you were making a correction to a quote. Surely you must distinguish them. The unknown can become known at some point.]

Unknowable is a quality of the unknown that distinguishes it from the known or what is knowable. I think you may have confused parenthesis with brackets.

Solomon:
[We can infer something without being able to image it. Whatever you ascribe infinite nature to is not image-able.
We can put the word "infinite" in front of anything known (infinite elbow, infinite corn...) So what?]

Please do not assume that I am limited by your point of view. In fact your elbow is indeed infinite.

Solomon:
[I've conceived
of infinite corn. I still can't image it.]

Look deeper into it and the “image” will take off on its own; you can follow it to eternity.

Solomon:
[There is nothing anyone can say that will make me believe they can image it. Call me closed-minded. ]

OK

Solomon:
[These are statements. One can state anything. It's not a proper way to argue/debate.
I can state that you stole a million dollars from me. Does that make it true?
Back up your statements with proofs or evidence.
I understand that the relative is a quality of your definition of universe. But i already explained
how our definitions are different and how mine is based on etymology and simplicity and your
universe is not UNI. You ignore/don't argue that with any proofs or evidence. In a UNIverse
there is no relativity. There needs to be more than one to have relativity. It is mis-named
UNIverse if its quality is relativity/dualism. I won't say this again - I will "assume" that you are
unable or unwilling to hear and communicate (it won't be an assumption). ]

Non Sequiturs?

lwowl

solomon levi
12-11-2012, 09:17 AM
Hi III and lwowl.
Yes, I understand that there are no things in the universe.
I also understand that there is a reason why we have the word "things".
Since we are using words here to communicate, I see their definitions require some attention.
I can't think of a "system" or religion that didn't define words in their own unique way -
Castaneda, Kabbalah, Gurdjieff, Alchemy, Krishnamurti, Buddhism, Nonduality, Australian aboriginal Dreamtime,
Jung, Quantum physics, Webster's dictionary, Christianity, Calculus, NLP, etc, etc.

It generally takes quite a bit of time and study to learn a system. There are so many systems out there, and then
you have people like us that blend systems together or are "multilingual", or even become our own authors and
qabalists, adding to green language, etc. We can have friends that we've known for years and still not understand
them on their level or their exact coordinates. How is that resolved? By listening, not talking. None of us wants to
listen or be the tabla rasa or forfeit our knowledge/wisdom for a space of time in order to listen anew. That's fine.
But let's admit it and move on. :)
If I have something new to contribute, I will. But the old has not been digested, so what's the point?
The point, if not to communicate, is to write to ourselves.

solomon levi
12-11-2012, 04:22 PM
For the record, here are some of Castaneda's words on the tonal. It isn't clear where the boundary is.
One description contradicts another. People have to make up their own minds, as usual.

"The tonal is everything we are. Anything we have a word for is the tonal . Since the tonal is its own doings, everything, obviously, has to fall under its domain.
Remember, I've said that there is no world at large but only a description of the world which we have learned to visualize and take for granted. The tonal is everything we know. I think this in itself is enough reason for the tonal to be such an overpowering affair.
The tonal is everything we know, and that includes not only us, as persons, but everything in our world. It can be said that the tonal is everything that meets the eye."

We have words for things that don't meet the eye - which is it: everything that meets the eye, or anything we have a word for?
What is Don Juan's definition of "thing"? He doesn't say.

"The tonal begins at birth and ends at death."

Hmmm. Does nothing end at death? Does infinity end at death? Does the universe?

"The tonal is like the top of a table--an island. And on this island we have everything. This island is, in fact, the world."

Is the world the universe, infinity, no thing? Kosmos? It is unclear.

"But the important factor to keep in mind is that everything we know about ourselves and about our world is on the island of the tonal .
What, then, is the nagual ? The nagual is the part of us which we do not deal with at all. The nagual is the part of us for which there is no description--no words, no names, no feelings, no knowledge. It is not mind, it is not soul, it is not the thoughts of men, it is not a state of grace or Heaven or pure intellect, or psyche, or energy, or vital force, or immortality, or life principle, or the Supreme Being, the Almighty, God--all of these are items on the island of the tonal.
The tonal is, as I've already said, everything we think the world is composed of, including God, of course. God has no more importance other than being a part of the tonal of our time."

He's talking to Castaneda, not someone already familiar with the second attention. Castaneda was slow, as the books repeatedly show.
Who knows how the conversation would have gone otherwise? I can still see infinity being other than the things he mentions in this list.
Infinity can be synonymous with potential energy which could be defined uniquely apart from energy. The island is in the middle of the Nagual.
It is not unreasonable to me that the Nagual is infinity.
It is unreasonable to me to compare infinity to an island which has borders/limits.
I've already given the etymological definition for infinity, which is no limits.

"The nagual is there, surrounding the island of the tonal . There, where power hovers."

Isn't power on the table? Oops. So there are other words that apply to the non-table area.

" What can one specifically find in that area beyond the island? There is no way of answering that. If I would say, Nothing, I would only make the nagual part of the tonal . All I can say is that there, beyond the island, one finds the nagual.
But then you say, when I call it the nagual , aren't I also placing it on the island? No. I named it only because I wanted to make you aware of it. I have named the tonal and the nagual as a true pair. That is all I have done."

It's obvious that there are other words for Nagual. The Gnostic Ineffable comes to mind. So does infinity.
Oneness too, which is another way of saying Universe: "turning to One".
Are we really going to say that no other religion or system is aware of what DJ calls the Nagual? I'm not.
And they call it by different words, obviously. Don Juan does not have a monopoly on the Nagual.
He is not the only one that can name something just for the sake of talking about it.
Nagual is a word that already has meaning - DJ didn't invent it simply for this purpose. So why did
he use this word when he could have invented one for the task?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagual

If DJ can choose an already existing word for the "part that we don't deal with" (obviously we do deal with it -
the books are precisely about dealing with it. I've been dealing with it consciously for decades. I can call it
Infinity if I like. I am familiar enough with it to do so.) then why can't we?

Here's a quote that supports my understanding:
"What is wrong with us human beings, and has been wrong since time immemorial, is that without ever stating it in so many words, we believe that we have entered the realm of immortality. We behave as if we are never going to die - an infantile arrogance. But even more injurious than this sense of immortality is what comes with it : the sense that we can engulf this inconcievable universe with our minds."

There you have it. The universe is inconceivable according to CC/DJ.
It's ironic and wonderful the quote - infantile arrogance. :)
I know I'm acting like an immortal asshole over this. It's cool. I'll say some hail mary's or something. :)

Here are some other words I found synonymous with Nagual which CC used:
"Sorcerers call intent the indescribable, the spirit, the abstract."


I am content to have Nagual and Infinity and Universe and Ineffable as synonyms in my understanding and it
doesn't inhibit me one bit. I'm sure your understanding works for you too, lwowl. That's what matters. Communicating
is just a luxury we might have shared.

III
12-11-2012, 07:54 PM
Scale is all in one's head. When one is in the labyrinth veiwing meta objects, there is no way to scale things. As in MIB, a galaxy in a bauble on a cat collar which can an infinity going "in", a dimension may not be visible. Infinite doesn't have to be "outwards" in specific way. Something can be infinite in one dimension that is otherwise unobservable.

Agreeing on the meaning of words means that we can actually talk about something. One might take the view that there are at least two distinct opposing groups in all this. There are those who desire freedom for all of us to see the creation in one way or another and to generally be able to do as they like. Then there are those who have been very insistant that we see it their way or else they will destroy us. The Christians and Muslims have been very insistant on that, for a millenium or two trying to literally kill off the opposition so that they can control. It's not the Yogis of any variety, not the alchemists, not the meditators etc that are trying to MAKE everybody behave according to somebody's handed down belief system used to have POWER and CONTROL over others. At least in America I'm not going to be killed because I have sex with a person to whom I am not married. I'm not going to be burned at the stake for saying that I disagree with some doctrine or another. What we can do is openly compare notes.


So let's take a few things that many have claimed exist and consider if they might be said to be objective. Let's take CHRIST CONSCIOUSNESS, and BUDDHA CONSCIOUSNESS or KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS or any number of other such states. Do these chambers (groups of chambers) have an existance such that people can be taught to perceive and be in these chambers. Are they each different and clearly perceivable as such. Can a dozen people agree when invoked into chamber X that it is a specific named chamber, agree that it objectively exists. I'm talking about the pure experience, not all the belief systems that get arttached to it. Being in Christ Consciousness doesn't mean that one is "SAVED" or any such to be there. What are the differences between Christ Consciousness and Buddha Consciousness for instance? Can they be described or demonstrated or what. It's difficult to stand on the shoulders of giants to make a NEW contribution if one can't even see the giants or able to climb up to their shoulders, metaphorically speaking of course.


Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic about expectations for this forum. I would hope that various persons can negotiate meaning and actually communicate about what we are doing. It isn't a matter of right and wrong. It's a matter of being able to agree sufficiently about meaning of words.


I come from a general scientifc background with a psychology major and much interest and then decades of data design and analysis. When I build a model of a database, it is a small scale model. However, it is every bit as real as a full size database. It's a way to build models for smilarity magic if you want to put it that way. It is no problem at all to design an n-dimensional database. Once one knows how to do it, it is another tool. I woke up in this life with all these things I could "know" and do. However, it wasn't until after I had become proficient in databases that I could see so clearly how that applies to the creation and why it is a useful tool.


I'm very much a pragmatist, both scientifically and mystically. I have the "this is what happened" and then I come up with the theory about why it works as it does and how it relates to all the similar things I have seen. I debug the metaphysics programs (alchemy) the same way I debug computer programs; push that car up to the top of the mountain and roll it down again and again and see if I can duplicate the failure mode, why it fails and find what works and make that repeatable and reliable. I'm possibly the most scientific mystic any of you might have come across. I know a number of such people. I run into the limitations of science all over the place, and most of that is conceptual. Science runs into dead ends all over the place because they don't see that happening until long after they are mired. So do Alchemists and Yogis and yogis.

lwowl
12-11-2012, 09:29 PM
Hello Solomon,

[I am content to have Nagual and Infinity and Universe and Ineffable as synonyms in my understanding and it
doesn't inhibit me one bit. I'm sure your understanding works for you too, lwowl. That's what matters. Communicating
is just a luxury we might have shared.]

We have been sharing. I’ve been listening to your writes. You might try what I’ve done. Step aside of yourself and watch your words and see what the holes say. I’ve gone down my holes like a white rabbit and found the whole inside. Navigate the conundrum; play with the paradox and you will find the Point of It All. Yes we play with “words have power.” To paraphrase Prodigy: “I take you through mind fields to make your head rock the ruts of ages.” “Then Play On.”

Hello III,

[As the creation and the Absolute can evolve as things change within the infinite internal fractioning of the creation, I would expect there to be a great deal of philosophizing about this and what is "objective" espeically if it can change and then always was and always will be until it changes again. There is no way to prove it though it can occasionally be observed.

I suspect that having/perceiving consciousness is objective. Meaning and all that would be subjective. Somewhere in that subjectivity we have a mix of reality and imagination, or so I would think. "I think, therefore I AM". Maybe a better statement of that is "I AM, therefore I think."

As far as the eternal bliss dive into the Absolute as suggested by some, perhaps isn't all it is cracked up to be. Maybe it doesn't perform quite as expected, as hypothecized. So one leaves the body in extreme bliss and goes into eternal state. And absolutely nothing happens no matter how long one stays in said eternal bliss state. And there one sits in frozen tableau outside the dead body, forever and ever and ever. Now that isn't how that story is usually told. So what is "objective" vs "subjective". So we have the lesser mysteries, the mysteries of life and death. What is illusion? What is Real? Is any of it objective? We have consciousness. Is that the limit of what is objective?]

It’s always good to know other Universal Navigators are surfing the Cosmic Waves in the Ocean of Chaos that is the Universe/Youniverse. One might say the Universe is Objective and the Youniverse is Subjective.

I first heard of “Youniverse” when I was invited to join the Youniverse Project back in the early 1970s. I was a microbiology technician back then. The Project research developed pure culture techniques for Stropharia Cubensis. The whorlds were spun a bit too much perhaps: White Phase… Flaming Red... Then came Negredo…. "Burnt in fires most cherished" profound calcination difficult to endure.

lwowl

solomon levi
12-11-2012, 10:04 PM
Hi III.
Well, I imagine we are trying to communicate in the most objective way possible.
If that's true, I don't see why I can't get anyone to agree that One must be infinite.
If it's not infinite, then there is something other than one, which means two at least.
Isn't this simple enough? Objective? I don't know how to be simpler.
To me this is the most obvious and simple statement. If we can't agree on that, I don't
see any point in trying to agree on more complicated issues.
Is there something unclear about One being infinite? If One is not infinite then it is a thing,
a part and not the whole. And a part must exist within some greater whole. The greatest
whole/One must be infinite, excluding nothing. That I call "One". Can we agree?

I don't care how people want to see things. I mean I don't need people to agree with me,
UNLESS we are trying to define what is most objective. We can't be in disagreement
about objective, or one of us isn't objective. If we are going to define the most objective,
then yes, I suggest it is infinity and One. Do you have a better, more objective, suggestion?

Here - I hadn't even thought of this; I was speaking from my own authority. But Pythagoreans agree:
"The monad signifies (a) the all-including ONE. The Pythagoreans called the monad the "noble number, Sire of Gods and men." The monad also signifies (b) the sum of any combination of numbers considered as a whole. Thus, the universe is considered as a monad, but the individual parts of the universe (such as the planets and elements) are monads in relation to the parts of which they themselves are composed, though they, in turn, are parts of the greater monad formed of their sum. The monad may also be likened (c) to the seed of a tree which, when it has grown, has many branches (the numbers). In other words, the numbers are to the monad what the branches of the tree are to the seed of the tree. From the study of the mysterious Pythagorean monad, Leibnitz evolved his magnificent theory of the world atoms--a theory in perfect accord with the ancient teachings of the Mysteries, for Leibnitz himself was an initiate of a secret school. By some Pythagoreans the monad is also considered (d) synonymous with the one."

"There are two orders of number: odd and even. Because unity, or 1, always remains indivisible, the odd number cannot be divided equally."

"(The following outline of the Pythagorean numbers is a paraphrase of the writings of Nicomachus, Theon of Smyrna, Proclus, Porphyry, Plutarch, Clement of Alexandria, Aristotle, and other early authorities.)

Monad--1--is so called because it remains always in the same condition--that is, separate from multitude. Its attributes are as follows: It is called mind, because the mind is stable and has preeminence; hermaphrodism, because it is both male and female; odd and even, for being added to the even it makes odd, and to the odd, even; God, because it is the beginning and end of all, but itself has neither beginning nor end; good, for such is the nature of God; the receptacle of matter, because it produces the duad, which is essentially material."

"The following symbolic names were given to the duad--2--because it has been divided, and is two rather than one;"


So I was seeing this directly - not telling you something I've read. And here these Philosopher-seers
agree with me. Would you like to agree or disagree?

solomon levi
12-19-2012, 02:15 PM
I had this idea that the reason philosophers and alchemists say "our"
as in "our mercury", etc... is because the term "our" is inclusive if you
are inside that circle and therefore relatively objective. Whereas from
outside the circle, we seem excluded: "our mercury is not the vulgar/common",
and therefore subjective.
So the Mirror of alchemy always reflects oneself. Are you reading as an insider or outsider.
Do you feel included or excluded when you read "Our"?

lwowl
12-19-2012, 05:19 PM
I had this idea that the reason philosophers and alchemists say "our"
as in "our mercury", etc... is because the term "our" is inclusive if you
are inside that circle and therefore relatively objective. Whereas from
outside the circle, we seem excluded: "our mercury is not the vulgar/common",
and therefore subjective.
So the Mirror of alchemy always reflects oneself. Are you reading as an insider or outsider.
Do you feel included or excluded when you read "Our"?


“Philosophers say, We have not written our Bookes but unto our children, and our children are they who understand our sayings.

And Plato saith, Who knoweth our purpose, and our intention is now a Philosopher, and is inriched; and who knoweth not our sayings, he is in the snares of Nature & c.

And Geber: For wheresoever we have spoken plainly , there we have said nothing, but where under riddles and figures wee have put something, there have we hid the truth.” [Revelation of the Secret Spirit, 1622, p. 73]

What you say seems true enough. I think the use of “Our” in alchemy is not so much subjective. It’s a reference that one must know the basic objective nomenclature of the Great Work before subjective applications can evolve.

lwowl