View Full Version : States, Cycles & Projections of the ONE 'Making Matter' (and Stone)

Bel Matina
03-08-2013, 04:34 PM
( Spin-Off thread, continued from this same post on General Comments on Alchemical Texts (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?3393-General-Comments-on-Alchemical-Texts&p=28220#post28220) )

You will never run out of new media into which you may project and multiply the stone. The more new things you find, the more they are one thing. The more everything is one thing, the more new things you find.

03-08-2013, 04:46 PM
The more new things you find, the more they are one thing.

Yes, this would be the essence of the MO, IMO.

The more everything is one thing, the more new things you find.

Now this, I find to be more of an axiomatic and apparently inevitable condition, rather than absolutely 'hardwired'.
Yes, the vast 'majority' of 'Creation' apparently cannot a-void the perpetuation of this cycle, so it subscribes to it/takes it as a given.

I don't.

You will never run out of new media into which you may project and multiply the stone.

Never say never :)

(See above. AND below...)

Bel Matina
03-08-2013, 09:15 PM
Never say never :)

Oh come now. You can always make more :)

03-08-2013, 10:16 PM
Oh come now. You can always make more :)

Of course I can.

"Why do dogs s..." you know the rest...

I agree that we 'never' (assuming time/space as an axiomatic point of reference) run out of 'media' to make/project more...

The questions is: Do we want to? Do we need to?

'Making more' is merely the default factory setting :)

Once Every Thing is One Thing (it 'already'/'always' is, so I actually mean once this realization is accomplished), why not just STAY that way and stop this infinite vicious cycle of shape-shifting repetitions of basically the same?

'Everything That Rises Must Converge'

Interestingly enough, the person who coined the phrase didn't see it necessary to add 'Everything That Converges Must Rise' (expand)... Hmm...

אותה גברת בשינוי אדרת


The Unknown is basically the same as The Known, just not yet, but 'eventually' (again, assuming 'time/space' as an axiomatic point of reference).

So we 'make more'
As we explore
What we've already
Known before

The Un-Knowable, on the other hand, is an entirely different 'state'...
A 'state' which I am personally inclined to equate with Bliss.
Time-less, Space-less, Know-less Bliss.

מרבה דעת מרבה מכאוב


And to get back to the original topic - most (if not all) Alchemical texts are set on 'factory default'.

Bel Matina
03-09-2013, 12:23 AM
Why are we assuming time/space as an axiomatic point of reference?

That said, why did we decide to "make more" again?

Nothing was ever necessary; alternately put anything was never necessary, something was always unnecessary, only nothing was always necessary. What rises must converge, and given time what converges will rise again, because time require now and not now, and they can't be the same. Thus there will always, that is to say at any time, be more layers into which to project the stone. In time or out of it are arbitrary, neither commands more virtue. You're picking between one and zero. It's easier to expand on one because zero can't be expanded on without its becoming one.

It's not fair to say that the majority of texts are obsessed with inflation. If anything, more ink has been spilled on the return to the root, on blackening and whitening, than on anything else. It's just that the profusion of perspectives means that really everyone needs to write their own book to understand someone else's. No particular shame if you crib a page or two, as long as you've made it yours.

03-09-2013, 12:46 AM
Why are we assuming time/space as an axiomatic point of reference?

Because I was using time/space coded terms, such as 'already', 'always', 'yet', 'eventually', etc...
And generally speaking, our languages are mostly axiomatically time/space coded, anyway...

That said, why did we decide to "make more" again?

Cyclical Amnesia? Addiction?

MORE is perhaps the most powerful and habit-forming drug in the Universe :)

How much is enough? Especially if MORE is in fact MORE OF THE SAME...

Besides, I don't think it's a 'decision'. Like I said before, it's the default factory setting, taken for granted, as in 'that's the way it is', as in 'axiom'.

Not making MORE would much better qualify as an actual decision, IMO.

Bel Matina
03-09-2013, 03:11 AM
I suppose to the point of what I'm getting at it that "making" is time-coded, in as much as it matches an "unmade" point of reference to a "made" point of reference, being distinct states.

Given the perennial relevance of the stone (which it must have, if it is to properly be our stone) and its necessarily fixed nature, to which nothing can be added (which it must have, if it is to be properly stone), and on the other hand the pervasive addiction of embodied life, always seeking a subsequent state, that is to say something different, that is to say more, there can be no contradiction between "more" and "no more", or the stone is not the stone. Now we know that the stone is not the stone (οὐ λίθινον λίθον) so this should be of no surprise, but we also know that the stone is the stone is the stone. Again, this should hold no contradiction for us. So to say that it is "better" to simplify the stone or it is "better" to multiply it is to reveal a flaw in the stone you hold.

I wish to air it that I recognize that you never said that one way is better than the other (or, importantly, that they are different) but I put it this way because I see some risk of what you've said being understood in this way.

03-09-2013, 03:34 AM
Ultimately, there no contra-addiction :)

You said 'distinct states'. Indeed they are and I agree - there is no contradiction, since the 'making substance' is one/none and the same.

The difference lies with the state(s) the 'substance' (of the stone and of 'everything') is in, ranging from infinitely immersed in 'making'/expanding and all the way back to compression/reduction > convergence > implosion > un-specified > un-ex-pressed. And repeat sequence. So, the issue I am raising is not one of contradiction within the 'substance of making' (there is no such contradiction), but merely the default and seemingly inevitable cyclical motion through its various states, as opposed to a permanently un-expressed alternative, IF it is even possible.

Bel Matina
03-09-2013, 04:25 AM
The permanence comes when we cease to see cycles of dynamic states and come to see static cycles of states. Then the stone is fixed, and pervades every moment - it is permanent in a timeless sense in that it holds (manet) thoroughly (per) for every moment, regardless of its contents or relationships with other moments.

solomon levi
03-16-2013, 09:15 PM
just wrote/rote this on fb... then i was reading here and saw relevance.

"Unaware of dreaming, who contemplates awakening? The great compromise... we are children of the Infinite! I know, I know... iPhones are pretty cool. Didn't I dream I would inherit this wealth of patience... a dream unrealized until the unconditioned and the conditioned shared love's kiss. O my god! Unfathomable! And here we are, my friends, our embrace far too brief... I haven't begun to scratch the surface. There is no wasted time. All the time in the universe can't capture it. This will conquer me for certain. My only prayer is to succumb gracefully."

You will never run out of new media into which you may project and multiply the stone.

We don't "run out", but seeing the infinite procession can result in stopping. I don't know about permanent stopping, or permanent anything. Although permanence seems to resemble infinity... again, i am conquered.

Bel Matina
03-17-2013, 05:33 AM
Permanence makes infinity one, because it holds for every possible state. It makes one infinite, because it holds the plan of all states implicitly within itself. The rotations may turn in upon themselves and multiply themselves forever, but the stone is the stone is the stone, and no matter where you project it it's still the stone; if you hold the stone, all time stands still no matter how fast it moves.

solomon levi
03-17-2013, 05:29 PM
to me, permanence and infinity resemble eachother in that i can't image either one. how do i image infinity with a finite knowledge? how ... permanence with an impermanent thought?
how can one see anything about permanence? isn't permanence immobile and nondual? no possibility of a separate seer?
ah, i just read you again and i think we're saying the same.
your description is giving me vision... so what is the diff, if any, between potential and manifest? is manifest a dream in potential? is potential a dream of the manifest? is one more real? is it focus that appears to isolate from potential? is this focussed dream a diff quality than potential, or only seemingly so?
when you say permanence MAKES infinity one, does this mean it can be removed and reapplied? or is that illusion?

solomon levi
03-17-2013, 05:43 PM
my mind buckles trying to fold 2 back to 1... can one infinite potential have a plan without being two? i hear you saying impermanent pluralism happens within the one permanent infinite potential... is that correct? i'm trying to yoke it without falling into linear progression... existing simultaneously in the same space. i don't agree/see separate linear dualism. do you?

Bel Matina
03-17-2013, 06:31 PM
The problem you're facing is that time is inherent in your understanding of permanence. Without time distinctions of causality, implication, and resemblance are meaningless. Permanence is revealed as what holds for everything, real, hypothetical, or implicit - these distinctions are meaningless if you remove the order of events. Permanence is what holds thoroughly. New states can be arrived at by recombining the elements, including through those operations which multiply them, and thus the states are infinite, but what is permanent holds for each of them and to this extent they are the same. Thus the infinite becomes one and the one infinite.

Focus on the etymology.

solomon levi
03-17-2013, 06:42 PM
ok. now i see nothing impermanent. only mind/time/thinking projects impermanence as a future.