PDA

View Full Version : Above & Below WHAT?



Andro
05-12-2019, 04:02 PM
We're all familiar with "As Above - So Below".

But the deeper question may not be what this says, but perhaps what it doesn't say?

Above WHAT? Below WHAT?

What is the point of reference?

Is there a LINE ???

If yes, where do we draw it?

Above & Below "ground level"? Above & Below "sea level"?

Above my head and below my feet?

As "Six Feet Up" - so "Six Feet Under"?

As in Olympus - so in Tartarus?

There may be a mystery hidden here :cool:

Just a little something to ponder :confused:

zoas23
05-12-2019, 06:26 PM
You are playing the fool like Hamlet, but I'll bite the bait.
The question does not begin with a Tabula Rasa and it is certainly linked to a vast literature that precedes it.
The notions of "above" and "below" are not completely unrelated to some of the options that you gave in a humorous way (i.e, "above the mont Olympus and below the mount Olympus"), because Religion came first and philosophy came second, but was forced to use some ideas that the first one had (i.e, most Religions placed the God "above" something and the world was a "below" of that something --that something could be the mount Olympus or whatever).

Philosophy created the notion of two different worlds... sometimes with a few others in between as to make a smooth transition (i.e, Plotius clearly identified 4 "realms": the Monad -Hen-, the Intellect -Nous, the Soul -Psyche- and the Matter). Other previous philosophers have been clearly "geographical" (i.e, Aristotle would draw that "line" you mention in the ecliptic of the moon that divides a place of the universe composed by Aether and a lower region composed of 4 elements)... Other philosophers were less "geographical" (thankfully)

The point of the Emerald Tablet is to compare the two extremes a superior one that is Spiritual, an inferior one that is material... But somehow making them a bit relative by stating that the two realms are similar as to make the "miracles" of only one thing.

... But I feel like I am talking to Socrates who is asking me a naive question because he knows the answer! (otherwise I would be writing: "Welcome to Alchemy Forums, Andro!" :p )

Kiorionis
05-12-2019, 10:08 PM
What is the point of reference?

From my perspective ‘As Above, So Below’ suggests the point of reference is from outside a system.

If the phrase was meant to be looked at from inside a system, it might sound more like ‘That is Above, and That is Below.’

The syntax of ‘As Above, So Below’ (to me) definitely suggests an outside perspective, perhaps directing the attention at a microcosmic object like a glass vessel or the interaction within a macrocosmic system such as the Sun and Earth.

Florius Frammel
05-13-2019, 04:24 AM
One of von Welling's answers:

http://www.graphicine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/georg_von_welling_1.jpg

The number of circles/places of heaven and hell vary (see for example Dante in the Divine Comedy)

A meaning that might not go that far:

"Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven."

It could mean to make something that usually only exists in heaven manifest down here below. Something with action above (wherever that is) and below where we live.

The perspective then would be that of the angel with the trumped on the ladder.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Mutus_liber_1677_1.jpg

Sometimes the perspective is not from a ladder, but from the middle of a chain:

https://render.fineartamerica.com/images/rendered/default/poster/8/10/break/images-medium/golden-chain-of-homer-photo-researchers.jpg

Or the black ray of Saturn, that connects the old one with the salt in that image:

https://i0.wp.com/andywhiteblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Vitriol-1-stolzius_von_stolzenburg-1614-1.png

Andro
05-13-2019, 08:26 AM
The syntax of ‘As Above, So Below’ (to me) definitely suggests an outside perspective, perhaps directing the attention at a microcosmic object like a glass vessel or the interaction within a macrocosmic system such as the Sun and Earth.
Sounds like you're talking about Scale Invariance :)

Awani
05-13-2019, 08:35 AM
The microscopic world looks like the macrocosmic world. The dream is reality, reality is the dream. Heaven is hell, hell is heaven.

In other words, for me, there is no such thing as above or below. The phrase implies there is no difference between any dualistic states... everything is ONE. So it is clear to me that the phrase never inteded to imply "above something" or "below something".

:p

Florius Frammel
05-13-2019, 09:15 AM
The microscopic world looks like the macrocosmic world. The dream is reality, reality is the dream. Heaven is hell, hell is heaven.

In other words, for me, there is no such thing as above or below. The phrase implies there is no difference between any dualistic states... everything is ONE. So it is clear to me that the phrase never inteded to imply "above something" or "below something".

:p

If that's really the case, there would be no possibility of any interaction imo.

Awani
05-13-2019, 09:46 AM
If that's really the case, there would be no possibility of any interaction imo.

How do you mean?

:p

Florius Frammel
05-13-2019, 10:37 AM
How do you mean?

:p

When you say



The phrase implies that there is no difference between any dualistic states.


you seem to exclude the possibility of an exchange of information between two parties. Be they of any kind.
Talks and discussions become useless. Sex gets pointless. Feelings of a possibility of transcendence or numinosity were nonsense, if there isn't a distinction made between the "I"(or "you", or "self", or the term you feel is most appropriate to describe "yourself") and an (assumed?) other.

You seem to rather understand this part of the Tabula Smaragdina as a description of a state that imo isn't really possible to achieve in this life. At least not until you have to go to the store to buy yourself some food.

The Tabula imo is intended to describe a process and interaction of polarities and not a state. The goal though may be the unification of dualities, which is maybe the state you describe, if I understand you right.

But one has to work (process) for it and in it's last instance it isn't completly achievable within the physical boundaries. Only in parts or perceived as an idea. What possibilities may occur after life is a different story, if there is one.

Awani
05-13-2019, 12:16 PM
On a "high" level there is no dualism. Everything is nothing (no-thing), useless (use-less), pointless (point-less) and nonsense (non-sense).

The phrase "as above, so below" means that it is the "same" above and below i.e. no difference. Pretty clear in my opinion. Nothing about something being above or below something else... because nothing can be.

Naturally dualism exist on the "microscopic" level, for example in the piss ant world of human beings... and (according to The Law) dualism exist on the "macrocosmic" level as well... but the mirror image of each to the other reflect - at the end - the same thing.

Is it a paradox that dualism is in fact oneness in disguise? Probably, but a paradox is not proof something is wrong... only proof that our comprehension is limited by our "dualistic" minds. In the perfect state of mind a paradox becomes tautology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)).

IMO.

:p

zoas23
05-13-2019, 08:39 PM
On a "high" level there is no dualism. Everything is nothing (no-thing), (...)

Two interesting and unrelated things:

1: We seem to be trapped into a geographical mess (which is maybe the subject of this thread): above and below... and now we have a "high level", but probably our languages relate the holy ideas with things which are above or in high levels or upstairs.

2: Even the nothingness can be a paradox. I recently saw how even the nothingness can be controversial in at least some Buddhist schools: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangtong-Shentong (the wiki article explains the basics of two different ways of understanding what you've said).

tAlchemist
05-14-2019, 03:30 AM
The microscopic world looks like the macrocosmic world. The dream is reality, reality is the dream. Heaven is hell, hell is heaven.

In other words, for me, there is no such thing as above or below. The phrase implies there is no difference between any dualistic states

Well there's at least some level differences. One is subtle, one is dense, Subtle and gross, Oneness in proportion.

In the great divide, 900x UP the octave, there will be a great difference if you were to go many levels down the "bottomless pit". One can also expect the behaviors expressed by the individuals in both places to be completely different than each other in comparison as well and they most certainly look much much different than each other, in my experience.

I guess as subtelty goes up, Quality as well, and this change is expressed naturally, like how the Red Stone, after The Order of the Stone is raised up a level, to a certain point begins to emit it's own light whereas before it did not... who knows the potential of Above and how different it may become :P

Kiorionis
05-14-2019, 12:22 PM
Sounds like you're talking about Scale Invariance :)

Generally, perhaps I am. I haven’t read much about scale invariance. But at this point in time I think that as things coagulate together and grow larger, their attributes change and/or adapt as they move up the scale. Same with moving down the scale.

Much like what tAlchemist wrote above.

Andro
05-14-2019, 12:52 PM
I haven’t read much about scale invariance.
Scale Invariance can be thought of as 'Self-Similarity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-similarity)'. What this really means is that regardless of how much you zoom into or out of an object (be it a function, or a physical object, or the like) it looks exactly the same. Fractals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal) are good examples of self-similarity. Shown below is an animation of the self-similarity of the Mandelbrot Set (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set):
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set)
https://i.stack.imgur.com/nwgmX.gif

Another well known example of scale invariance in physics is the Wiener process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiener_process), which is a continuous-time stochastic (random) process. It's also often called standard Brownian motion. No matter how much you zoom into a Wiener process you still get quantitatively the same thing:


https://i.stack.imgur.com/kAik2.gifhttps://i.stack.imgur.com/kAik2.gif


SOURCE (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/90883/what-is-scale-invariance/90905)


I think that as things coagulate together and grow larger, their attributes change and/or adapt as they move up the scale. Same with moving down the scale.That would be Non-Scale-Invariance :)

Kiorionis
05-14-2019, 06:25 PM
Haha well then I support both concepts.

Coleridgean
05-16-2019, 02:41 AM
Above the firmament versus Below the firmament. The waters were separated, in the beginning, as in Genesis. By waters below we mean that which proceeds in the little alembic which is our glass, the glass itself being the Firmament, and then the waters (or air) above and outside the glass, where we regulate our outer fire so that the inward fire might burn right. In the glass you will have the fire of the philosophical sulfur, AND the fire of the philosophical mercury. When you have extracted the seed of gold through a continual circulation, regulated by the outer fire, you will finally bring about that fourth fire, which is the fire against nature. This is the beginning of Hermes Tree, which grows from the ashes of the former calcination. All the things you do outside of the glass (ABOVE), which is Hermetically Sealed, will have their corresponding sympathies Within the glass (BELOW).

In the meaning of planet Earth there is the sublunary (below) and the Astral and Celestial (above). A better wording might be "As Outside, So Within"

Andro
05-16-2019, 04:26 AM
Above the firmament versus Below the firmament.
Awesome! Now WHAT is this "firmament"?

Coleridgean
05-16-2019, 03:07 PM
The solid dome (back when the Earth was considered flat, the notion was a dome rather than a sphere around Earth) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament

There are four sublunary elements in ascending order Earth, water, air, and fire, which comprise the sublunary world. Then the firmament, which is the boundary, then luna and the other planets (astral), then the celestial.

For an alchemist, the hermetically sealed GLASS alembic is the firmament, literally. Once all the stuff goes in at the beginning (mercury and sulfur), then the work is kind of on its own, except for the regulation of the outer fire (athanor) and light and darkness. George Starkey explains it quite well in Ripley Revivd.

See Nordenskjold 1789 -- An ADDRESS to the True Members of the New Jerusalem Church, revealed by
the Lord in the Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg, who sincerely wish to separate
themselves both internally and externally from the Old Church. :

XXIV. That the only genuine Science of Alchemy consists in the three following Branches ; namely, 1st, the
Theory concerning the Matter ; 2d, the Theory of the Furnace ; and, 3d, that of the Regulation of the Fire. The
first Theory shews that Gold is the only Subject Matter of the Work ; the second shews that this Work requires a
Furnace that can stand the Fire for the Space of a Year at least, and admits of being regulated with Ease and Facility ;
and the third Theory shews by what a Regulation of Fire Gold may be so opened in the Furnace, as to discover it’s
two-fold and it’s three-fold Principles, and how to put them into Action, in Order to accomplish it’s Perfection.

XXV. That the characteristic Difference between the true and the false Alchymist may be seen at once from
the Theory of Matter, for, as the first works on no other Subject except Gold per se, so the other, works on all
Sorts of Materials, and is always employed with Compositions and Mixtures ; as is the Case with Theology, for
true Divinity admits of no other God save Jesus Christ alone, whereas the false, on the other Hand, does not accept
of the Lord, or when it does, it takes him always in Conjunction with other Powers.

XXVI. The Alchymist who will not see, when it is laid open for him, that Gold only is the Subject Matter of
the Philosopher’s Stone, shews thereby he has little Knowledge in natural History, little in natural Philosophy, little in
Chemistry, and none at all in the Science of Correspondences ; for from these four Sciences it may be confirmed
that Gold per se is really the only Subject Matter of the Philosopher’s Stone.

XXVII. That true Alchymy to this Day has been an entirely sealed Science, and an absolutely impenetrable Mystery,
is from no other Reason but because they have not been able to see and perceive that Gold per se is the only
Subject for the Philosopher’s Stone, and that by Means of this only can Gold be made, or Transmutation rendered
possible.

Andro
05-16-2019, 03:51 PM
I'm suggesting there may be a deeper meaning to this "firmament" archetype.

Coleridgean
05-16-2019, 04:13 PM
Well, electrons do 'orbit' the nucleus of an atom, and planets do orbit the sun, and the sun does orbit the center of the galaxy. Point and circumference, weaving the circle of Trismegistus.

Andro
05-16-2019, 05:06 PM
Nevermind :cool:

Awani
05-16-2019, 05:12 PM
Why speak in riddles? Either speak out or don’t speak at all.

At least that is how I feel about it...

:p

Andro
05-16-2019, 05:22 PM
https://media.giphy.com/media/vlyviFEMurYmQ/giphy.gif


Why speak in riddles?

http://66.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m60t4i0LHG1qbxva1o1_500.gif

But really, I kind of wanted wanted to "probe" to what extent people are willing to think/see outside the more "mainstream" narratives...

But no worries, I shall expand and elaborate more, in due time...

:p

Awani
05-16-2019, 06:15 PM
Speaking in riddles equates in my world to master suppression techniques [MST], which is somewhat common in the alchemical community as well as in certain guru communities. Silence is one thing, but implying knowing without revealing the knowing is snakeoil salesman tactics. I see this in many threads in the forum and elsewhere.

Interestingly (according to a study at Stockholm University) a countermeasure to MST is to question it... i.e. my post. ;)

MST - withholiding information
When a group or individual withholds information, or addresses important issues, when certain individuals are not present or privy to the complete picture, this master suppression technique is exercised.

So what do you think is below the Above and above the Below?

:p

Coleridgean
05-16-2019, 06:46 PM
The first English review of Dom AJ Pernety's which appeared in the 1770's gives a pretty decent answer as to why riddles, in my opinion:

MEM. IV. Concerning the Custom of proposing Riddles, to be solved, and its Observation, both by Ancients and Moderns. By Dom Pernetty.

In this Memoir, in which there is more erudition and labour, than accuracy and order, we learn that, among the ancients, the Egyptians, Phenicians, Hebrews, Greeks, and other civilized nations, conveyed truths of all kinds under the cover of riddles, hieroglyphics, and symbols: that the learned, or the heads of these nations, followed this practice, either through singularity of taste, or to give a certain air of importance and solemnity to their discourses, or to make an ostentatious display of their inventive genius and subtility, or to conceal from the people the secrets both of science and government, and to maintain their own importance by keeping these hidden treasures in their own hands, and covering them with a veil of mystery, that rendered them doubly the objects of ignorant and superstitious veneration. Some of these motives, and perhaps all of them, jointly occasioned the invention, and perpetuated the use of enigmatical and symbolical erudition, according to Dom Pernetty; and modern Rome, if we are not mistaken, has known how to avail itself of this manner of keeping the multitude in subjection, as well as ancient Egypt.-—The Academician pours forth a treasure of well-known erudition and trite reflexions on this subject, passes in review the characters and courts of Hermes Trismegistus, Solomon, and the queen of Sheba, and marks the period (even the conquests of Cambyses in Egypt) when the Egyptian arts, sciences, and symbols were carried into Greece and elsewhere by the scattered priests, and laid the foundation for those superstitious absurdities, that overfiowed the earth for so many ages, and are not yet entirely effaced. He shews that God, and his attributes, Nature, and her operations, were often the secret and sublime objects of these enigmatical fictions. He points out the necessity of distinguishing four sorts of enigmatical, or hieroglyphical writing, in order to come at the true knowledge of the wisdom and science of the Egyptians: he explains the doctrine of the transmigration, as Pythagoras derived it from the Egyptians, the nature of the famous sphinx, which he considers as the riddle itself, or the symbol of the riddle, which it is said to have proposed. He shews the use made of riddles at the convivial meetings of the ancients; but says little or nothing of the place they hold in modern times, in the scale of wit and pleasure. -

zoas23
05-16-2019, 06:52 PM
http://66.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m60t4i0LHG1qbxva1o1_500.gif

But really, I kind of wanted wanted to "probe" to what extent people are willing to think/see outside the more "mainstream" narratives...

But no worries, I shall expand and elaborate more, in due time...

When you ask a question that seems naive, I would not call you the Riddler, but "Socrates"!

Andro
05-16-2019, 07:06 PM
Speaking in riddles equates in my world to master suppression techniques [MST] [...] Interestingly (according to a study at Stockholm University) a countermeasure to MST is to question it.
Then you might as well start questioning all alchemical authors since the beginning of recorded time...


So what do you think is below the Above and above the Below?
https://i.imgur.com/IeB6It9.jpg

X Marks The Spot
_________________

PS: Thanks Coleridgean

PPS:
When you ask a question that seems naive, I would not call you the Riddler, but "Socrates"!Whatevs, darling :)

Awani
05-16-2019, 07:10 PM
When you ask a question that seems naive, I would not call you the Riddler, but "Socrates"!

Get a room.


Then you might as well start questioning all alchemical authors since the beginning of recorded time...

I am.

:p

Florius Frammel
05-16-2019, 07:26 PM
http://i.imgur.com/lo1JKYY.jpg

;)

Coleridgean
05-16-2019, 07:34 PM
Andro - why that would be the figure-8 version of the Ouroboros, except in the three-dimensional form of a special alembic.

Andro
05-16-2019, 08:02 PM
Andro - why that would be the figure-8 version of the Ouroboros, except in the three-dimensional form of a special alembic.
https://i.imgur.com/5i2YFkE.jpg

X Marks The Spot

Coleridgean
05-16-2019, 08:20 PM
It's the perfect representation of conjunction - or maybe a "chiasmus". The true cross-product of the alembic - the axis mundi as a pole through the center, stemming both ways from the punctum saliens. Wayy more interesting looking than my Tesla coil.

Andro
05-16-2019, 08:48 PM
stemming both ways from the punctum saliens.
We could say that this "Punctum Saliens" is what I'd suggest as the reference point for "Above" & "Below". Universally, with all its implications, not just alembic-wise.

Some researchers refer to it as the "Zero Point" - not because it's "nothing", but because it has no spacial coordinates and is therefore immeasurable.

BTW way, if you studied Tesla, you may know how he felt about "electrons" :)

Kibric
05-16-2019, 11:30 PM
Microcosm and macrocosm are lenses created by man for man to perceive his reality.
Big and small are concepts that only exist for man to identify perceive and interact with reality.

There is no above and no below, the separation of them is fictional, created by mans need to identify one part of his reality from another . hence
as above so below, because there is no difference between them, they are the same, the microcosm and macrocosm.

There is no distance or space between you and the stars you observe, and the atoms in the stones beneath your feet.
Space is an illusion for separating matter ( energy/information ) in order to interact with it a physical level.
Like time its a scale we created to measure reality so we can interact with it.

Andro
05-17-2019, 10:25 PM
https://i.imgur.com/5nzU9hG.png

zoas23
05-18-2019, 03:32 AM
Get a room.

Join us and it would be fun.

Anyway... Seeing the "this" posts reminded me of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajra#Symbolism

Seth-Ra
05-18-2019, 05:03 AM
The “zero point”, the compression of the extremes into a singularity: “mana” (what is it)
The answer and question, “what is it? What am I? What is matter/energy/consciousness/existence/etc)
Incomprehensible is the Ain Soph, the Elohim - plurality as a singularity, paradoxical and complete.

Lol what is it, indeed. :)



~Seth-Ra

Florius Frammel
05-18-2019, 05:33 AM
What do you think is in, above, below, behind or beyond the X?

According to the Tabula, obviously that which is above, is like which is below. Sounds like a short circuit. But when it's all equal anyway, why is there a need for the X in the first place?

https://i.redd.it/wxme9mgizek01.png

https://nlarchaeology.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/httpweavingataleortwo-blogspot-ca201104blogging-challenge-x-marks-spot-html.jpg

Seraphim
05-18-2019, 02:47 PM
I don't know if this helps anyone or adds anything of value to the discussion but I was reading and I felt it was relevant to this thread. Maybe someone else will have better luck understanding than I have. Also I do not know the accuracy of this translation below, sorry.


Chapter 11
What is the Intention of the Wise Man with this Subject?

The intent of the wise man in our work is non other than to multiply the nature of fire in our subject, so that our Philosopher's Stone may be most perfect, for it must be pure fire and can be nothing other than fire. When Hermes speaks of the element below, he means the common type of fire that can be found every day in our cooking ovens. And when he speaks of the upper fire, he means the type that comes down in the rays of the sun and which is in the sun itself. This type of fire is quite volatile eats away at everything and destroys by dissolving all things into the air, where nature will capture it in a watery body of congealed air and dry earth. This body is the salt of all things that is formed from the congealed water through the power of fire in the innermost heart of this closed body.

Andro
05-21-2019, 06:20 AM
that which is above, is like which is below. Sounds like a short circuit. But when it's all equal anyway, why is there a need for the X in the first place?
Because "like" implies similarity, which is not the same as 'equal".

The X is a graphic simplification of the concept.

The center point/punctum saliens/zero point/ is the Ground Zero of both emergence & return. It's the Center that is 'everywhere' within a Circumference that is 'nowhere'. Etc...

FF, have you read the book I recommended to you about aether physics and magnetism? (BTW, before it was called 'physics', it was called 'natural philosophy')

That book (the last revision) came out in 2014. I read it shortly after it came out, and it really opened my mind about the way we are conditioned to perceive the workings of nature.

HERE (http://argos.vu/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/magnetism1small.pdf) is a link to the free PDF (the book was always free to download). Even if one understands less than 10% of it, it's still a big win :)

Florius Frammel
05-21-2019, 08:00 AM
Because "like" implies similarity, which is not the same as 'equal".

Thanks for confirming this. Otherwise the whole concept indeed would be pointless.




The X is a graphic simplification of the concept.

The center point/punctum saliens/zero point/ is the Ground Zero of both emergence & return. It's the Center that is 'everywhere' within a Circumference that is 'nowhere'. Etc...

This implies that in the X symbol there is not only an above and a below, but also a left and a right. The classical symbol for Sal (H)Armoniac could therefore represent the same, or an improved "concept":

http://www.pryortechnology.com/files/image/1642/Symbol%20G3_Asterisk.JPG

In the end it consists of a "double X". I know others though who say the asterisk is an angel's asshole. ;)



FF, have you read the book I recommended to you about aether physics and magnetism? (BTW, before it was called 'physics', it was called 'natural philosophy')



I always appreciate your book recommendations very much. But here I haven't gone far yet, but I already learned something anyway.

I sometimes complain about nowadays the frame is much more important than the picture.
This is unfortunately exactly the case in my relationship with that book so far. The layout makes it very exhausting to read for me. Not to mention the spelling mistakes. And his ongoing insults against Einstein and other scientists speaks more against Wheeler (the author) himself than those people he keeps on insulting.

Of course all this can be viewed as "the frame", which is so ugly, I struggle to deal with the actual picture (content).

But I still intend to go on with it when I gathered enough will power. ;)

Andro
05-21-2019, 09:03 AM
his ongoing insults against Einstein and other scientists speaks more against Wheeler (the author) himself than those people he keeps on insulting.

Then what does it say about Tesla? He ridiculed Einstein long before Kenny Wheeler did :)

Anyway, that book may contain some keys to hopefully rectify one's perception of how things work. It's not about Alchemy, but it helps understand quite a few things in less archaic language. Plus, it has some cool pics of anti-cubical Bismuth crystallization patterns (such have been posted on this forum as well) and some cool pics of Marcasite (Sun-Pyrite), accompanied by actual explanations. And some illustrations by Da Vinci, too! I recommend reading that book armed with a highlighting marker :)

Anyway, the reason I brought up that book is because the way it explains magnetism resonates a lot with my perception of 'Above', 'Below' and 'What Lies In-Between'. The Separator thread fits in nicely with this model as well.

Florius Frammel
05-21-2019, 09:14 AM
I don't know the exact words that Tesla used for Einstein. But imo there are different shades of ridiculing.

When someone is keeping on calling a dead person (who usually also can't defend himself anymore) a stupid idiot over and over again, this person himself is more on the asshole side imo.

That of course may not necessarily affect the actual content of his book though. He should have concentrated more on that imo.

Andro
05-21-2019, 09:27 AM
That of course may not necessarily affect the actual content of his book though. He should have concentrated more on that imo.
Let's concentrate on the content of things. Otherwise, the discussion gets progressively derailed.

Some concepts worth looking into:

- Zero Point
- Counter-Space (Gegenraum)
- Dielectric plane of 'inertia'.
- Mass vs. Magnitude (we can apparently have the former without the latter)
- Incommensurability

Etc...

Salazius
05-21-2019, 03:08 PM
When we read Mircea Eliade about the conception of the worlds "making this universe" (particularly when linked with traditional societies with shamanism) we see that there is a world of above, and a world of below, but also a "midgard", middle plane, were things get "dense", this is where humans live with their flesh body.

All traditional culture have that.

A world with gods (generally the wanderers, as planets) and a supreme spirit, this is the sky world. It's Above.
A world of below, with animal spirits, sometime humans, and a place for "death and deads".

That's a vision.

I see the Above as a general archetypes, and the below, a particular manifestation of them. As people, functions, plants, actions, minerals. Etc.

Thus the Above is for example Mars, the Below would concern midgard and haematites, blood, war, soldiers, nettle, red jasper, sword or spear... etc

Thus the limit between could be a what, a when, a where, a how... A cross, an X, an equinox, a full moon, a door, a window, a threashold, etc.

Some people analyzed manifestations of ghosts in scotland, and found out that they were more likely to manifest at door steps, threashold, corridors, windows, because they are inbetweens.

Look at the Narasimha Myth.


Narasimha (Sanskrit: नरसिंह IAST: Narasiṃha, lit. man-lion) is an avatar of the Hindu god Vishnu, one who incarnates in the form of part lion and part man to destroy evil and end religious persecution and calamity on Earth, thereby restoring Dharma.

Narasimha iconography shows him with a human torso and lower body, with a lion face and claws, typically with a demon Hiranyakashipu in his lap whom he is in the process of killing. The demon is powerful brother of evil Hiranyaksha who had been previously killed by Vishnu, who hated Vishnu for killing his brother. Hiranyakashipu gains special powers by which he could not be killed during the day or night, inside or outside, by any weapon, and by man or animal. Endowed with new powers, Hiranyakashipu creates chaos, persecutes all devotees of Vishnu including his own son. Vishnu understands the demon's power, then creatively adapts into a mixed avatar that is neither man nor animal and kills the demon at the junction of day and night, inside and outside. ...

...

Hiraṇyakaśipu, unable to control his anger, smashed the pillar with his mace, and following a tumultuous sound, Viṣṇu in the form of Narasiṃha appeared from it and moved to attack Hiraṇyakaśipu in defense of Prahlāda. In order to kill Hiraṇyakaśipu and not upset the boon given by Brahma, the form of Narasiṃha was chosen. Hiraṇyakaśipu could not be killed by human, deva or animal. Narasiṃha was none of these, as he is a form of Viṣṇu incarnate as a part-human, part-animal. He came upon Hiraṇyakaśipu at twilight (when it is neither day nor night) on the threshold of a courtyard (neither indoors nor out), and put the demon on his thighs (neither earth nor space). Using his sharp fingernails (neither animate nor inanimate) as weapons, he disemboweled and killed the demon king.

Andro
05-21-2019, 03:30 PM
Thus the limit between could be a what, a when, a where, a how... A cross, an X, an equinox, a full moon, a door, a window, a threashold, etc...
... door steps, threashold, corridors, windows, because they are inbetweens.
YES! That's what I'm talking about. "Where/When" the "Veil between the Worlds" (Above & Below) is "opened" or "pierced" :)

The "Veil" (such as between Above & Below) is The Center and it is EVERYWHERE (non-localized) and is has neither spacial footprint nor measurable magnitude.

Yet, it IS.

And under certain conditions, a "door" can be opened, locally.

Florius Frammel
05-21-2019, 04:57 PM
YES! That's what I'm talking about. "Where/When" the "Veil between the Worlds" (Above & Below) is "opened" or "pierced" :)

And under certain conditions, a "door" can be opened, locally.

That is in my opinion the traditional symbol of "seeing Diana nude" like it is used in quite some alchemical treatises.

http://i.imgur.com/lo1JKYY.jpg

But guess what happens when you actually see her nude? Right, you guessed it. You become a stag!

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_OELGYdguJaY/S558iRgjkDI/AAAAAAAAAGA/jFil1t040pU/s1600/cesari.jpg

At least that happened to Actaeon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actaeon) (sounds a bit like Acetone..) right before he got torn apart from his own hounds.

And it may be (maybe) for good reason why most people haven't looked directly at the X in the myths. Be it a burning thornbush, the ark of the covenant, or god's intervention at Sodom and Gomorrah that lead to poor Lot's wife becoming a pillar of salt. Or like other Crazy Diamonds that reached for the secret to soon..


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2tj2WU0Yqk

Andro
05-21-2019, 05:13 PM
And it may be (maybe) for good reason why most people haven't looked directly at the X in the myths.

Or like other Crazy Diamonds that reached for the secret to soon...
https://i.imgur.com/nKe0yoD.jpg


... or god's intervention at Sodom and Gomorrah.
That one has nothing to do with our X. Just the whim of a psychopath. Unless you want to look at it more metaphorically :p


But guess what happens when you actually see her [Diana] nude? Right, you guessed it. You become a stag!
That only applies to straight people :D LOL

Not sure I'd be immune to Apollo, though :p

But seriously... Our X-point is beyond gender.

✂-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florius Frammel
05-21-2019, 05:55 PM
Our X-point is beyond gender.

Really? I always considered polarity interplay as an expression of gender. Or gender being one aspect/symbol for it. As well as sexual intercourse.

https://c8.alamy.com/comp/HKMMHB/alchemische-vereinigung-aus-dem-donum-dei-HKMMHB.jpg

Andro
05-21-2019, 06:08 PM
Really?
Really.


I always considered polarity interplay as an expression of gender. Or gender being one aspect/symbol for it. As well as sexual intercourse.
The progression is from gender-less (the middle point of the X) to perfect, unified-with-itself "Androgyny" (for lack of a better term).

Yes, the work is dual, but its Immaterial Beginning & Fixed End are not.

Also, I don't think we should anthropomorphize Alchemy too much...

Awani
05-21-2019, 06:11 PM
This implies that in the X symbol there is not only an above and a below, but also a left and a right. The classical symbol for Sal (H)Armoniac could therefore represent the same, or an improved "concept":

http://www.pryortechnology.com/files/image/1642/Symbol%20G3_Asterisk.JPG

The above is on its way to become the symbol of Chaos or the Star of Ishtar/Venus... which is love. ;)

https://i.ibb.co/LQCvYx0/Unknown.png

Chaos is Love. Chaos is Creation. Creation is Love. Love is Creation.

As above, so below.


Thus the limit between could be a what, a when, a where, a how... A cross, an X, an equinox, a full moon, a door, a window, a threashold, etc.

And yet that which is below is that which is above, which makes the limit become only a "perspective".

:p

Florius Frammel
05-21-2019, 06:32 PM
Really.

Ok. I guess I got the point! ;)

Salazius
05-22-2019, 11:44 AM
The big mistake not commit is to imagine that the X point, cross road (where the pacts with the devil are made generally, ask Robert Johnson lol), is always everywhere.

It's not everywhere in the relativeworld (it's Now.here and No.where in the absolute world) so some X Paths, X.tra roads are doomed.

Simply because the relative place in midgard where they stand are not leading to a perfect X gate, but to an X Goat place.

That's the major mistake of the Hebrew Ark of Covenant. They made a disequilibrated Covenant, opening a gate on a place of fire, a Tyrannic Fire Demon Entity, eager for power and blood in order to get some food appeared from it.
Re reading the bible is very interesting with this point of view. YHVH is then a psychopathic entity :"Yes of course Mose, kill the other tribe of your cousin, to get their land, no problem with that", and also "bring me on the battle field and give me some holocauts also..." This vampire entity doomed partically the destiny of Hebrew people. Pacts of souls and blood are the worst to get rid of.

The gates that are opened should be also closed.

One should know perfectly how works the Matrix in its polarities in order to know how to make a super neutral point. The Hermetic Vision must then be at a pro level, to the extreme understanding of it. And I can tell you, that you'll never find anywhere this knowledge in books. You receive it from God (no bigotery here, it's just a Vision of perfection that happens like enlightenement).

And, if someone knows how to open it, then he must also know how to avoid that point to be ruined and vampirized. The Source must stay pure and not be given to any entity coming and going. I say this because I opened it. Some entities tryed to ask me for favors. All these entities feeding on others' energies, unable to have a link to the Source on their own as it should naturally be, because they renounced to it at some point...

Everyone wants free food. All chinese restaurants know that. But there is nothing free. That's the law of Fluxes. Everyone has to pay at a moment. Nothing in the relative world is free.

But because you opened the door, you are karmically responsible of it. Your doom.

Basically, for "one" microcosm, there is only one true Door. That's all.

LeoRetilus
05-22-2019, 07:27 PM
The X is the signature of fire in nature, learn to see the light of nature! That is why it portrays radiating spires, thats what they are.

Known to all generations ,in all times, and all places throughout time that the Sun was animator and giver of Life!!

Meant to shine above and to give life to whats below, it burns and dis-integrates matter in many different ways and dimensions/realms and planes, in burning itself out it enlivens other things...

Alchemy is the Work of The Sun, it says plainly at the end of the Emerald Tablet

To know what the three parts of the philosophy of the whole world are.....Life...Death....Resurrection

Florius Frammel
05-25-2019, 01:47 PM
It may be useful to compare the Tabula with other texts from the time when it was written, or the time when it was read a lot. In medieval times Dante Alighieri also described an above (Heaven with the Empyrean) and a below (Hell, with the three headed Baphomet/devil figure in the middle of the earth). The place in between (the X of that story?) was the Purgatory where the ancient Pagans (like Aristotle and others) reside or wait till world's end. Their only mistake why they can't go to heaven was that they were born before Christ and therefore could not be redeemed like all the humans that were born after Christ.

Just summarizing the concept of the Divine Comedy.

https://christianpoetryshifted.weebly.com/uploads/1/9/5/9/19598335/2752378.jpg


https://c8.alamy.com/comp/DP9XCF/dantedivine-comedymap-DP9XCF.jpg

Andro
05-25-2019, 04:51 PM
Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky


- J. Lennon

Florius Frammel
05-25-2019, 08:05 PM
Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky


- J. Lennon


That's a quote often used by atheists.
So do you want to say there is no "other space" where entities reside and interesting things can be found that scientists reject, or do you just reject the idea of heaven and hell? After all it fits quite well to your initial question, don't you think?

Andro
05-25-2019, 08:47 PM
Do you just reject the idea of heaven and hell?
No, in fact they're very much there, and there are many versions of them. It's just that they are quite obsolete. And one can circumnavigate those, if one knows how to die properly.

But it's time for humankind to move on into adulthood/maturity without all this divisive and toxic carrot/heaven & stick/hell "parenting" of the gods & demons and their emissaries.

Enough "kneeling before god(s)" and "asking god(s) for forgiveness", etc... What a bunch of psychopathic megalomaniac control freaks they've become over the eons... most of them, anyway...

Time for humanity to grow the fuck up, and time for all the various "god" species to leave and retreat back to their own home realm(s) and lock the door behind them.

"Above" and "Below" are merely fields emerging in opposite directions from the "Ground Zero" plane/Source. Who or what inhabits those fields is a another question.

Florius Frammel
05-25-2019, 09:03 PM
No, in fact they're very much there. It's just that they are quite obsolete. And one can circumnavigate those, if one knows how to die properly.

What about innocent small children dying? Or those who got raped and killed, or could not effort thinking enough how to die properly because they struggle every day to survive? What about beloved and already dead ones who did not have the possibility and opportunity for whatever reason to inform themselves how to die properly? I know life (and probably death too) isn't fair, but in your Weltsicht are they all doomed?




It's time for mankind to move on into adulthood/maturity without all this divisive and toxic "carrot & stick parenting" of the gods and their emissaries.

Seems like Jesus already tried that. Some think he succeeded. Some think he never existed. Most nowadays don't care at all. At least not until they are aware their time has inevitably come. Then even the most hardcore atheist wants to cling on anything. It should have happened even to Terry Pratchett they say..




Enough "kneeling before god" and "asking god for forgiveness", etc...

From where comes the power to be able to do this? Do you know the story of Deadalus and Ikarus (of course you do)? What about this cheesy song?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObWNrkMT5dc

And how do you know the path you are propagating is not leading to ruin but is the only(?) way out?




Time for humanity to grow the fuck up, and time for all the various "god" species to go back to their own home realm(s) and lock the door behind them.

Sounds interesting. Could you go more into detail please?

I don't want to fight. I'm just curious about your concept and reason that seems(?) to contradict the behaviour and goal of mankinds religion and mysticism since all times.

Except maybe some egyptian pharaos who made themselves gods and fucked their sisters to keep their divine lineage clean and create disabled offspring and others who all miserably failed in challenging god(s).

What do you think makes you more special than those?

Andro
05-25-2019, 09:39 PM
You (probably) can't even begin to fathom the "damage" all this toxic "parenting" by the gods has caused.

Humankind doesn't need to be "saved" by the gods, but from them.

Life is not fair, gods or not. And we likely wouldn't even be in this state if it weren't for this long overdue toxic parenting in the first place.

Atheists and religious people alike are generally clueless about the shady businesses & wars those god-species have been running here... And on top of this, humans have been basically hardwired for religion, whether they admit it or not. Even atheism is also a religion/belief system.

But perhaps you're missing the main point. "Above" and "Below" are Fields/Emanations. It's the Ground Zero/Source we should ultimately focus on. But to do that, we have to unite those seeming "opposites", whether it is in our flasks or within ourselves, ideally both. It paves the Path of Return to Non-Duality and ultimately to the immeasurable/incommensurate Source.

Childhood's End.


From where comes the power to be able to do this?

The gods just LOVE it when we believe it comes from them. It doesn't. The Source is One and omnipresent/non-localized, and the gods don't have a monopoly over it, although they'd like humans to believe otherwise. All they have is more access, through eons and eons of their own evolution. And it's an understatement to say that they're not inclined to share this access. So they've become addicted to being "parenting gods" and are incapable of leaving the "younger" races to their own independence.


What do you think makes you more special than those?The actual answer - I cannot give it here. But maybe it's because I don't fuck my sisters (or women in general) LOL

Florius Frammel
05-25-2019, 09:46 PM
You (probably) can't even begin to fathom the "damage" all this toxic "parenting" by the gods has caused.

I think I can. A dog probably couldn't. Thought experiments however can lead to many different directions.




Humankind doesn't need to be saved by the gods, but from them.

Life is not fair, gods or not. And we likely wouldn't even be in this state if it weren't for this long overdue toxic parenting in the first place.

Atheists and religious people alike are generally clueless about the shady businesses & wars those god-species have been running here.


I really like you Andro, but this sounds a bit like you would think you are some kind of new Messiah. Unless there are people I don't know that you are following and built up that believe system. All the alchemists I read definately are not thinking this way.





Even atheism is also a religion/belief system.

I agree. As is (misunderstood) science.




But perhaps you're missing the main point. "Above" and "Below" are Fields/Emanations. It's the Ground Zero/Source we should ultimately focus on. But to do that, we have to unite those seeming "opposites", whether it is in our flasks or within ourselves, ideally both. It paves the Path of Return to Non-Duality and ultimately to the immeasurable/incommensurate Source.


Why? To become nothing? Or everything? Or both?



The actual answer - I cannot give it here. But maybe it's because I don't fuck my sisters (or women in general) LOL

That doesn't make you special. In the last centuries most of the times and places that wasn't even an advantage.

Andro
05-25-2019, 10:00 PM
this sounds a bit like you would think you are some kind of new Messiah.
Far from it. If it mistakenly comes across this way, it's most definitely not my intention. This is a forum and I am expressing my views. But there are other "messiahs" popping out here and there... mostly of the "religiously convenient" sort :) ... In short, I may be many things, but "messiah" is not one of them.


All the alchemists I read definitely are not thinking this way.
While I DO still read (for now), I will also do my own thinking, thank you very much.


That doesn't make you special. In the last centuries most of the times and places that wasn't even an advantage.
I already wrote above that I cannot give my actual answer here. But even my "joke" reply above could be taken to hold some particular value in the proper context. But it's not about "advantages" as most socially engineered & culturally indoctrinated people would (probably?) perceive them.

elixirmixer
05-25-2019, 11:03 PM
Your mind is my only envy Andro.

In fact, more your experiences.

Do you offer shamanic training programs?

Andro
05-25-2019, 11:27 PM
Your mind is my only envy Andro.
In fact, more your experiences.
Thanks, that's kind of you to say... I guess... But there's no reason whatsoever for envy. You have your own gifts, as I have mine.


Do you offer shamanic training programs?
Not really...

Sometimes I teach short workshops (most of them are private events and are not advertised), but those are hardly "shamanic training programs"...

They can, at best, offer only a small taste of what is possible.

But to the topic:

"Above" & "Below" are fundamental basics, "hardwired" into the mechanics of how things work, dualisticallly emanating from the "Center".

Heaven/hell & gods/demons, etc. on the other hand, are transient phenomena.

Kibric
05-26-2019, 12:28 AM
Andro, you are all wrathful, peaceful, knowledge holding deities. They are you and you them.
Non physical gods are you. Your consciousness is not local anywhere at all, and is many things other than your personal slice of it.
I cannot truly prove my consciousness is separate from yours or anyone else because neither is local anywhere.
Man kneeling and asking his gods, is praying to himself. That other massive slice that he's asleep to.

I proclaimed with deep loving conviction in a dream " Immortality for all " and so unknowingly propelled my illusionary self towards it.
Terrified bugs were in a freshly made bed, falling asleep in fear found a single ant crawling on my belly.
Obsessed about death alot and someone i knew died.

To see all the faces that are you, gently stare at your own reflection.
As one face passes to another, the different sides of you reveal themselves.
Try it and you'll see.

Florius Frammel
05-26-2019, 07:03 AM
While I DO still read (for now), I will also do my own thinking, thank you very much.


I was just wondering what your sources are. The alchemists obviously weren't. Your view as far as I can see it resembles that by Crowley and Tolle a bit though. And how can you be sure your thinking is genuinely your own?



But it's not about "advantages" as most socially engineered & culturally indoctrinated people would (probably?) perceive them.

How can you be sure? Even you must acknowledge that the current culture and environment are influencing your thinking. The load on books and TV shows and movies you and I consume were not available in former times. How can you be sure that your view doesn't stem from a very smart entity in disguise with it's own agenda?

The possibility to provide this kind of out of the box thinking wasn't even given most of the times. Not to mention the possibility to tell others these kinds of views publicly and online. In this regard you are lucky to live here and now in this culture and environment for it would probably not be possible in the past. At least not that easy and convenient.

And this side of the curtain seems to actually be important according to your own words. You said it's needed to learn how to die properly. I ask you again. What about all the people who don't know and even today are not able to learn for a lot of reasons (the poor, the sick, the young)? Do you think you are the only one who can tell them/us, or is this valuable information also accessable from somewhere/someone else. If I had to look for it inside myself you now have already planted that seed in my subconcious and I can not be sure if it's really from the inside of me, or from you.

Andro
05-26-2019, 07:31 AM
Kibric:

In the one, it is one. In the many, it is many.

In the absolute, you are absolutely right.

In the relative, we cannot disregard the need for context. To para-quote the Kybalion, Shakespeare is in Hamlet and Hamlet is in Shakespeare, but Hamlet is NOT Shakespeare...

Again, to para-quote the Kybalion, no "side" or "pole" of "truth" should be disregarded, neither the Absolute nor the Relative.

In the realm of transitory things, yes, humans are gods, but eons "from now". Just as the gods are humans (of sorts), but eons "ago".

To quote Awani: "Don't let the delusion of reality confuse you regarding the reality of the illusion."
________

Florius:


Do you think you are the only one who can tell them/us?Most certainly not.


or is this valuable information also accessible from somewhere/someone else?It is accessible to those to whom it is accessible, from wherever it is accessible.

No "man" is an island. My (unsolicited) suggestion to you is to focus more on understanding the fundamental mechanics and less on the various narratives. For now, I will not address any further inquiries from you, since it always leads to a new game of 20 questions :) ...

Finally, if anything I said or wrote resonates with you, you're welcome to test it, use it and make it your own. If not, cast it aside :)

Also, I do not ever claim to "speak the truth". Even from a strictly technical perspective, it would be impossible. "Truth" cannot be "spoken". I've discussed this on one of the NBA podcasts.


---------------------------------------------------

Florius Frammel
05-26-2019, 08:56 AM
Florius:

Most certainly not.

It is accessible to those to whom it is accessible, from wherever it is accessible.


Sounds like something god-given ;)



No "man" is an island. My (unsolicited) suggestion to you is to focus more on understanding the fundamental mechanics and less on the various narratives. For now, I will not address any further inquiries from you, since it always leads to a new game of 20 questions :) ...

Fair enough! I actually didn't expect any answers really. And I generally agree with you that answers to those kinds of questions given by others won't lead very far. But they might be inspiring at least. But the way you seem(?) to ship around certain questions seems to show several inconsistencies in your view. You seem to take out from the whole the parts which seem to fit and reject/ignore those who don't. But I guess most are doing it that way. It just doesn't sound very universal and that it may still need some adjustment.


And sorry when my questions seem to be uncomfortable to you. I'm just not like some others here who cheer about anything you say without questioning it at least a tiny bit.

Please understand that I'm not attacking you personally in questioning though!



Also, I do not ever claim to "speak the truth". Even from a strictly technical perspective, it would be impossible. "Truth" cannot be "spoken". I've discussed this on one of the NBA podcasts.


Also fair enough! You sometimes seem to be pretty convinced of the accuracy of your view though. Eventually you even teach some of it to others.

Andro
05-26-2019, 09:09 AM
the way you seem(?) to ship around certain questions seems to show several inconsistencies in your view.
There are no inconsistencies. I DO however ignore certain types of questions, but for a different reason. If you look closely, you'll even find consistency in the type of questions I ignore :)


it may still need some adjustment.Always.


you even teach some of it to others.Even when I "teach", I always encourage independent validation. You should know this by now.

Anyway, I will make some "closing statements" from my perspective about the topic of this thread, but not right now.

Florius Frammel
05-26-2019, 10:51 AM
I think it's also a question of definition. Some of us may think about the same but have different terms for that. Or we use the same term but have different things in mind.

Defining terms can be boring but lead to a better understanding of each other.

For example some when they hear, or read the word "god" think about a bearded man in the sky to whom he thinks to have to obey in order to please the wrathful father figure of his image.

Others, and there are many examples throughout history, tend to imagine god like something incomprehensible and unfathomable. The source of everything, creator of the above and the below and in whose bossom one will return after death to unite and eternally live in peace with.

The second view can be pretty close to your definition of the X and again is shared by many (even medieval) christians, jews, moslem, hindi, buddhists and what not.

The first one is a very childish image of god I agree.

The undetermined use of the word "god" therefore will unevitably lead to misunderstanding and confusion.

BTW, even the concept of the Spiritus Mundi was carried into modern times under the name "Weltgeist" by the philosopher Hegel (and even his successors Feuerbach, Marx, Engels and Sartre).

Andro
05-26-2019, 05:22 PM
https://i.imgur.com/GgktEnC.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/jQ5G7RO.jpg

Andro
05-27-2019, 06:14 AM
https://i.imgur.com/NAqcoxJ.jpg


http://i.imgur.com/7d3g8j9.jpg (https://imgur.com/7d3g8j9)


Credit to Zoas for the additional input.

Florius Frammel
05-27-2019, 08:33 AM
Maybe it's time to introduce the two most universal (zero and one dimensional) symbols of this thread:

https://www.newslichter.de/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/punkt.jpg

Point reflection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_reflection)

and

https://cdn.icon-icons.com/icons2/953/PNG/512/straight-horizontal-line_icon-icons.com_74237.png

Circular symmetry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_symmetry#Three_dimensions)

Andro
05-27-2019, 08:51 AM
https://res.cloudinary.com/teepublic/image/private/s--4E0Z8QSx--/t_Preview/b_rgb:ffffff,c_limit,f_jpg,h_630,q_90,w_630/v1492583241/production/designs/1482255_1.jpg

http://clipart-library.com/images/pi5rGkzdT.jpg

Florius Frammel
05-27-2019, 09:01 AM
https://static1.mainpost.de/storage/image/6/3/7/6/2406736_m-articles-flex-height_1szSYg_0qF7mh.jpg

Andro
05-27-2019, 09:25 AM
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/75/9c/29/759c291b7167df6ba06dbe1d360892e0.gif

Florius Frammel
05-27-2019, 09:30 AM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dac5t57XUAAJYv9.jpg

Florius Frammel
05-27-2019, 01:14 PM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-d1FFvjIre8A/UTz94YRuISI/AAAAAAAABEM/mSdccnr7AB8/s1600/iuoiuo.jpg

Florius Frammel
05-27-2019, 02:15 PM
http://i.imgur.com/W2pQPnC.jpg

Kibric
05-28-2019, 09:48 PM
For example some when they hear, or read the word "god" think about a bearded man in the sky to whom he thinks to have to obey in order to please the wrathful father figure of his image.
From a historical stance they're kind of right. The earliest creator deities ( god is a title, originally they were called something else ) were associated with the sun sky and water.
A white man with a beard is the physical description of some of these deities, who were infact humans from a recently destroyed civilisation.
The image is ancient. The Canaanite deities who form the Elohim which are the basis of the OT god, where taken from older civilisations.
The spiritual attributes these gods have were generated by ancient man worshipping them. Osiris doesn't really look after the dead,
when he was alive he established burial processes and customs taken from his fallen civilisation.
Truth becomes story as more time passes.

A non physical universal God is something that pre " gods " hunter gathers had an idea of.
For me it means man generated this universal concept himself, when he was still learning to distinguish and separate matter, see in 3 dimensions.
He used light as the identity of this God because light is fundamental to life universally and his. The natural world around him runs by it.
Its how he starts to make sense of his reality. Day from night. Sun from moon ?.
Then in later traditions associated it to the visitors " gods " on his land.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/62/f0/32/62f0326a924a7b37864194a766f4f5c8.jpg

Florius Frammel
05-29-2019, 06:19 AM
On which Stage of Faith (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_W._Fowler) are you?

Andro
05-29-2019, 06:33 AM
Answering for myself: I feel I am not even represented on this scale :)

Florius Frammel
05-29-2019, 07:48 AM
Answering for myself: I feel I am not even represented on this scale :)

This would bring you into a position of "observation without intervention" (https://www.radford.edu/~tpierce/201%20files/201%20handouts/Naturalistic%20Observationl%20ecture%20notes.pdf). In the end this would mean

1) You actually are completly outside of the observed system.

2) The model of Stages of Faith needs refinemend.

3) You actually are represented but you don't feel it.

Andro
05-29-2019, 04:06 PM
This would bring you into a position of "observation without intervention" (https://www.radford.edu/~tpierce/201%20files/201%20handouts/Naturalistic%20Observationl%20ecture%20notes.pdf). In the end this would mean

1) You actually are completly outside of the observed system.

2) The model of Stages of Faith needs refinemend.

3) You actually are represented but you don't feel it.
Whatevs, darling :)

zoas23
05-29-2019, 06:48 PM
This would bring you into a position of "observation without intervention" (https://www.radford.edu/~tpierce/201%20files/201%20handouts/Naturalistic%20Observationl%20ecture%20notes.pdf). In the end this would mean

1) You actually are completly outside of the observed system.

2) The model of Stages of Faith needs refinemend.

3) You actually are represented but you don't feel it.

4) Structuralism can be transcended :p

Florius Frammel
05-29-2019, 07:14 PM
:o


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0W5gx1ABHo

Andro
06-04-2019, 04:55 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPd0Sg42Cvo


Also watch the movie Snowpiercer (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1706620/).

zoas23
06-04-2019, 10:38 PM
https://i.imgur.com/NAqcoxJ.jpg


http://i.imgur.com/7d3g8j9.jpg (https://imgur.com/7d3g8j9)


Credit to Zoas for the additional input.

That one is my favourite among the examples, but because it makes explicit some things that the other examples probably don't (i.e, the Ying Yang symbol mostly shows a balance and an equivalence... the Vajra is already divided in 3 parts with an explicit middle and takes things a bit further).

Somehow as if it was symbolizing more phrases of the Emerald Tablet... i.e, this whole part:

"That which is below is like that which is above
and that which is above is like that is below
to do the miracles of one only thing
And as all things have been and arose from one by the mediation of one:
so all things have their birth from this one thing by adaptation."

Of course, any symbol can potentially show such thing and even more, but I mean that it is showing it in a very explicit way.

Saturneus
01-13-2020, 04:17 PM
Is it not a fractal? That is to say it depends on where you are looking from, each point in the structure has its relative above and below.

Andro
01-13-2020, 04:55 PM
Is it not a fractal? That is to say it depends on where you are looking from, each point in the structure has its relative above and below.
There are some (very few) "things" that are not relative.