SCOPE:
To investigate the interface between physics and metaphysics
.
REFERENCES:
.
OBSERVATIONS:
[OK, I am starting all over again using Buddha’s principle of seeing things as they are. I decided to define the scope of Physics and Metaphysics at the outset. I see Metaphysics much broader in scope and Physics to be part of that scope. Physics deals with manifestations. Metaphysics must deal with perception because there is nothing else there. I have been reading Aristotle. Metaphysics did not start out as the subject of perception, but it should have. That would have greatly simplified the subject of philosophy.]
ONE: There is looking and perceiving.
TWO: There is something to be looked at and perceived.
THREE: Thus there is manifestation and perception.
FOUR: Physics is a study of manifestation.
FIVE: Metaphysics is a study of perception.
.
PERCEPTION:
[It is PERCEPTION that gives rise to the ideas of SELF, SPACE and all the MANIFESTATIONS around us. Our perception is the starting point of it all. Later we would be investigating what perception is. But first I want to establish the starting point of this investigation.]
SIX: MANIFESTATION is thought to be there. It is what is perceived.
SEVEN: Perception is thought to involve a “perception point”. Thus there is the consideration of SELF.
EIGHT: Self is thought to be separate from manifestation. Thus there is the consideration of SPACE.
NINE: Perception, primarily, is thought to involve the considerations of MANIFESTATION, SELF, and SPACE.
TEN: Perception appears to be THOUGHT considering itself.
.
EXISTENCE:
[Philosophy still hasn’t sorted out fully what EXISTENCE is. There are many different views about it. In other words, different philosophers mentally perceive existence differently. It all boils down to perception. The problem of existence sorts out nicely when we define it in terms of perception.]
ELEVEN: Manifestations, self, and space are thought to be present. Thus, there is the consideration of EXISTENCE.
TWELVE: Manifestation is what is perceived. Self is what perceives. Space makes perception possible.
THIRTEEN: That this is so is a consideration.
FOURTEEN: Existence is the sum total of considerations perceived.
FIFTEEN: Existence is relative and not absolute.
.
CRITERION OF INVESTIGATION:
[It is important to establish the first principle from the outset. It then acts as the criterion for rest of the investigation. Here we are using PERCEPTION as the first principle and the criterion. One may figure-figure whatever one wants, but unless it is there to be perceived, it would not meet the criterion of this investigation.]
SIXTEEN: Aristotle called the subjects of metaphysics “first philosophy”. He called the study of nature, or physics, “second philosophy”. This is consistent with the fact that study of manifestation (second philosophy) is intrinsic to the study of perception (first philosophy).
SEVENTEEN: The implication from Aristotle is that the primary task of philosophy is to search for first principles. Aristotle seems to describe the first principle as “the first basis from which a thing is known.”
EIGHTEEN: By definition, a first principle would be a basic, foundational proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption.
NINETEEN: In this investigation we start with the first principle of PERCEPTION OF MANIFESTATION. It is something that is universally there. It spurs thinking and further looking.
TWENTY: Hence the criterion used in this investigation would be the determination of those thoughts and observations that are consistent with ‘PERCEPTION OF MANIFESTATION’. These things can be found when actually looked for.
.
FIRST CAUSE:
[“First Cause” is a misnomer. It has nothing to do with the notion of “cause and effect”. “Cause and effect” denote a certain association between two events where the second event is looked upon as the outcome of the first event. “First Cause,” on the other hand, is the property, which makes a manifestation simply appear without association with anything else. It is interesting to observe that the property of “first cause” may be applied to all manifestations before applying the association of “cause and effect.”]
TWENTY-ONE: We cut a tree; it falls. We strike a match; it lights up. Thus, we have a phenomenon that is a direct consequence of another phenomenon. This makes us believe that all phenomena are caused. We, thus, assume that a manifestation must be a consequence of another manifestation. This belief leads to an infinite causal series.
TWENTY-TWO: To resolve this inconsistency, we assume a First Cause that is not itself caused. But this makes the First Cause different from the way all other causes are understood. It allows the possibility that a manifestation may simply appear.
TWENTY-THREE: All manifestations simply appear as we perceive them. They disappear as we stop perceiving them. Thus, we may consider “First Cause” to be the property of all manifestations.
TWENTY-FOUR: The notions of CAUSE and EFFECT seem to indicate an association between two manifestations, which otherwise simply appear and disappear as we perceive or not perceive them.
TWENTY-FIVE: Hence, consistency with perception tells us that “First Cause” is a property that applies to all manifestations. On the other hand, “cause and effect” is a special sequence observed between two manifestations.
.
GOD:
[God cannot be a manifestation itself that can be perceived, and at the same time be the source of all other manifestations. That is highly inconsistent because it makes it possible for any manifestation to be considered God. Thus, if there is a God, then it can’t be manifested. It would be beyond perception. It would be part of speculation only.]
TWENTY-SIX: When God is viewed as a Being with the properties of holiness, justice, sovereignty, omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence, omnipresence, and immortality it qualifies as a manifestation. The property of “First Cause” applies to God just as it applies to any other manifestation.
TWENTY-SEVEN: The implication of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems is that no system can be described completely by using an aspect of that system for reference.
TWENTY-EIGHT: Therefore, God, viewed as a manifestation, cannot completely describe the presence of all other manifestations
TWENTY-NINE: Thus, God must be something that is beyond manifestation. It may be looked upon as the background against which manifestation, and even perception, appears.
THIRTY: Thus, God is THAT, which cannot be conceived or perceived. It is beyond desire, expectation and speculation.
.
CONSIDERATIONS AND KNOWLEDGE:
[The considerations form themselves into space. Disturbances in space travel as radiation. Radiation condenses as matter. The primary knowledge is perception of considerations, from which come memory, experience, knowledge, information, hypotheses, theories, principles, axioms, etc.]
THIRTY-ONE: Space separates manifestation from perception-point. Separation generates desire to know. Desire to know generates expectation. Expectation generates speculation. Speculation generates considerations.
THIRTY-TWO: Considerations (thoughts, ideas, assumptions, expectations, suppositions, conjectures, speculations, etc.) form the fabric of the mental space. Disturbance traveling through this fabric is what forms radiation. This radiation condenses and becomes fixed as matter.
THIRTY-THREE: The perception of these considerations forms the basis of knowledge. Knowledge gradually becomes more structured as it condenses into information, hypotheses, theories, principles and axioms.
THIRTY-FOUR: All considerations are relative and so is knowledge.
THIRTY-FIVE: There is no absolute consideration. There is no absolute knowledge.
.
NAME AND FORM:
[Name and form (nama-rupa in Sanskrit) is the crystallization of thoughts, at which point persistence enters into the picture. Name and form become the points of reference because they are persisting, even if for a fleeting moment. They can now interact and combine into more complex forms with new names.]
THIRTY-SIX: Considerations interact with each other. For such interaction to take place, there must be persistence.
THIRTY-SEVEN: For considerations to persist they must acquire some form. A unique consideration will have a unique form or ‘name’.
THIRTY- EIGHT: The considerations, thus, interact and combine into more complex forms with new names.
THIRTY-NINE: When there are names and forms there are also considerations.
FORTY: “God,” “Prime Mover Unmoved” “Uncaused Cause,” “Supreme Being,” “Unconditioned Being,” etc. are all considerations.
.
.
[Further development of this project is in progress…]
.
.
SELF:
[As considerations acquire name and form they become fixed. From this come transformations, such as, symbols, pictures, feelings, emotions, impulses, etc. The perception point appears to be the center of these considerations analogous to the “center of mass” in Physics. This is SELF. Considerations give rise to judgments that seem to be coming from self.]
FORTY-ONE: As considerations acquire name and form they develop a structure and become relatively rigid or fixed.
FORTY-TWO: From this structure of considerations come transformations, such as, symbols, pictures, feelings, emotions, impulses, etc. Thus come about means for communication, such as, language.
FORTY-THREE: As these considerations become relatively rigid or fixed, the perception point appears to be the center of these considerations analogous to the “center of mass” in Physics. This is SELF.
FORTY-FOUR: The perception gets filtered through the structure of considerations that make up the SELF, before it reaches the perception point.
FORTY-FIVE: The filtered perception gives rise to judgments that seem to be coming from SELF. This determines the view of existence, the Universe and also the view of self.
.
Comments
Vin, This comment that “Ego, self, or thetan is the resultant vector of a grouping of interconnected considerations. As long as there are interconnected considerations, which determine logic, there would also be ego” is the cleanest statement of the mechanic of the reactive mind that I remember. At least it is helpful to me and also dovetails with your statement “self” as the center of gravity for considerations.
Yes, the pieces are gradually falling into place. 🙂
.
I assume these pieces will be obsolete by the time the picture is complete? Heisenberg’s Uncertainty would tell us that by the time we locate that moment, it will have already passed.
The nearly extant frame of reference should gradually become more consistent until that moment when it becomes obvious that it is incomplete being overshadowed by yet another more current frame of reference. The boulder will slip and roll back to the bottom of the hill and then we can begin rolling it back up again. And yet I wonder! I feel on the precipice of inspiration but not quite but almost.
I am looking at shifting states, I will call it energy for lack of a better metaphor. When I am feeling inspiration, when it occurs, it occurs suddenly as though by a quantum leap. First it is here, and then it is just suddenly there.
Above when I use the language of “overshadowed” I can see how that overshadowing is language to note the shifting energy state.
Even when I refer to “King Sisyphus” it is clear to me the physics metaphor I have incorporated.
It is difficult to predict anything. Intuition is always a surprise.
.
Metaphor has become for me like a wakeful dream-state which points to the deeper underlying physicality that is trying to float up in my consciousness.
Mindfulness has me seeing my environment as a seething mass of mechanics as though I were inside an intricate clock mechanism looking out.
Chris, what do you think of the KHTK exercises in Set 2?
KHTK EXERCISE SET 2
.
Consciousness is general awareness of the input. Recognizing that input is perception.
.
Nia wrote: https://vinaire.wordpress.com/2012/12/01/philosophy-project/#comment-7850
Vinaire: It seems that physical are the “first cause” characteristics. These attributes simply appeared. There is no rhyme or reason underlying them.
Vinaire: THIRTY-ONE: Separation generates the desire to know. The desire generates perception. The perception of ‘what-is’ is Knowledge
Nia: I think that physical springs from desire to know also. But I can’t provide a proof so handily as you; perhaps you can consider?
Warm regards,
Nia
.
Space seems to be the first thing to come about with separation. Simultaneously there is a desire to know. Thus, come about perception point and manifestations to be perceived, perception, etc. Interaction among these seems to produce physical energy and matter. At this stage there is no interconnection among these manifestations, and therefore, there is no logic and no self. This is level of the physical universe.
Later, as the perception point considers these manifestations, and develops interconnection among these considerations, there comes about logic and self.
This is what you seem to be saying Nia. Is that right? At the moment I would go along with that.
Wram regards,
Vinaire
https://vinaire.wordpress.com/2012/12/01/philosophy-project/#comment-7849
Hi Vinaire, What do you think of the term “consciousness?” Do you think it could be a synonym for “perception?” Thanks,
Nia
.
It seems that “consciousness” is general awareness of things, and “perception” is more specific recognition of ‘what-is’.
.
https://vinaire.wordpress.com/2012/12/01/philosophy-project/#comment-7855
If perception point is the organizing principle of the gathered considerations,
if consciousness is the organizing principle of a cluster of considerations,
and if a weak cluster of considerations is faded
and a strong cluster of considerations is solid,
then what is the perception point when the fading fades to zero
and the solid condenses back into itself as a black hole?
Nia
.
Here are some musings:
Perception-point = Symbolization of the desire to know and reunite.
Consciousness = Awareness of something being there
Attention = Directed consciousness
Perception = More specific awareness of ‘what-is’
Visualization = Conjecture about ‘what-is’
Consideration = Hypothesis about ‘what-is’
Cluster of considerations = Theory about ‘what-is’
Cognition = Recognition of ‘what-is’
It seems that cognition reduces a cluster of considerations to knowing a piece of a puzzle. The perception-point persists as long as the puzzle is not solved. When the puzzle is solved, union takes place. Space disappears and so does the perception-point.
When no cognition is occurring, the cluster of consideration seems to become bigger, condensed and solid. It seems to develop its own reality. Thus, a new layer of onion comes about.
SELF is the onion. The outer layer is that cluster of considerations that may either get dissolved with cognition, or become more solid as a new conviction or reality.
.
My thoughts are going in the following direction:
Something that can be perceived or imagined has separated from God.
The separation creates a duality or two opposites like electron and positron.
The primary duality is ‘manifestation’ and ‘perception’. A reunion of the two may annihilate both back to the state of God.
The separation between the two elements of duality manifests as SPACE. Space is not perceived for what it is. This prevents reunion.
Thus, there is the desire to know so there can be reunion.
The desire to know generates interpretation of what-is. Thus, considerations (thoughts, ideas, assumptions, expectations, suppositions, conjectures, speculations, etc.) come about.
The more primary the considerations are, the more stable and ‘physical’ they become. The later the considerations are the more fluid and ‘mental/spiritual’ they appear.
Science examines the primary considerations, which appear as the physical universe.
.
This is great. I have some more thoughts too and will try to post them later today.
Regards,
Nia
Nia, I look forward to your thoughts on this subject of knowledge.
.
Vinaire;
Something that can be perceived or imagined has separated from God. check The separation creates a duality or two opposites like electron and positron. check The primary duality is ‘manifestation’ and ‘perception’. A reunion of the two may annihilate both back to the state of God. check The separation between the two elements of duality manifests as SPACE. Space is not perceived for what it is. This prevents reunion. ? Thus, there is the desire to know so there can be reunion. check The desire to know generates interpretation of what-is. Thus, considerations (thoughts, ideas, assumptions, expectations, suppositions, conjectures, speculations, etc.) come about. check The more primary the considerations are, the more stable and ‘physical’ they become. The later the considerations are the more changeable and ‘mental’ they appear. check Science examines the primary considerations, which appear as the physical universe. check
Chris: I followed that pretty good and it seems plausible enough. I didn’t understand the 4th sentence. Throughout our explorations, it seems that we either see or try to equate condensation of manifestation and density to sequencing or “time ordering” of manifestations. Is that how you see it?
The 4th sentence is the necessary conjecture because if it is not there then as-isness will take place and everything will vanish back into God. That is the area I need to look at more closely.
Time is a secondary manifestation. It would exist whenever there are events taking place sequentially. Only other alternative would be that those events do not take place sequentially but occur all at once. That is a possibility.
.
I’m still not getting it. “Space not perceived for what it is.” What is it?
Hi Vinaire and Chris,
This is a very long post and I’m sorry it’s not more worked out but I have gone as far as I can on it alone, so here it all is. Thank you, in advance, for your indulgence.
These last posts are very rich in content; I have been working a different line of thought and I think it touches on one aspect of your post:
Vinaire (original), [The primary duality is ‘manifestation’ and ‘perception’. A reunion of the two may annihilate both back to the state of God.]
Vinaire: The 4th sentence (2nd in the excerpt here) is the necessary conjecture because if it is not there then as-isness will take place and everything will vanish back into God. That is the area I need to look at more closely.
Now, here are my musings:
Clear statement of the problem: What is really happening when things disappear? When they annihilate and vanish back into God? What I referred to in this question:
NIA: what is the perception point when the fading fades to zero?
Restating definitions:
(Of course, there is the huge question of what you mean, Vinaire, by symbolization (Perception-point definition)!! But I’d like just to accept that for now.)
Vinaire: Perception-point = Symbolization of the desire to know and reunite. Nia: Accepted
Vinaire: Consciousness = Awareness of something being there. Nia: Agreed
Vinaire: Attention = Directed consciousness. Nia: Agreed
Vinaire: Perception = More specific awareness of ‘what-is’. Nia: Agreed
Vinaire: Visualization = Conjecture about ‘what-is’. Nia: Accepted.
Vinaire: Consideration = Hypothesis about ‘what-is’. Nia: Agreed
Vinaire: Cluster of considerations = Theory about ‘what-is’. Nia: Agreed.
Vinaire: Cognition = Recognition of ‘what-is’. Agreed.
Vinaire: When no cognition is occurring, the cluster of consideration seems to become bigger, condensed and solid. It seems to develop its own reality. Thus, a new layer of onion comes about.
SELF is the onion. The outer layer is that cluster of considerations that may either get dissolved with cognition, or become more solid as a new conviction or reality.
I had a problem with this part:
VINAIRE: become more solid as a new conviction or reality
This introduces a new one or two terms not defined in above list and represents a leap, I think. A new conviction or reality is neither a cluster of considerations nor cognition, so what is it? But setting that aside for a moment, using all your definitions and to go after the question of what is really happening when things disappear… When they annihilate and vanish back into God?
This is such a confusing question and for some random reason I thought of the Laplace Transform from Mathematics, which I always thought was a brilliant technique for problem solving.
Paraphrasing the Laplace Transform and abusing it for this purpose: If a problem is too difficult to solve, transform it into another space where it is soluble, then transform it back. Now you have the solution in your original space.
Using that idea to explore my question, we could transform the problem into a space defined as having no time. Now we just have the onion (of SELF) in space, without time.
This eliminates the confusion of the apparent sequencing of events in time. I think that time keeps getting in the way, so get rid of it long enough to explore the question without confusing ourselves. Vinaire, you have done an incredible job of keeping time out of the formal statements but I think it’s a paradigm issue that’s hard to avoid. Here you are thinking and I’ve capitalized the time issues:
VINAIRE: The 4th sentence (2nd in the excerpt for this) is the necessary conjecture because if it is not there then as-isness WILL take place and everything WILL vanish back into God. That is the area I need to look at more closely.
Borrowing from Mr. Laplace’s little bag of tricks, transform any number of problems into a space (in the sense of problem space, not the space we talk about here) without the time dimension and examine those problems there and then bring them back into the problem space that has the time dimension.
The first thing I looked at in this time-less space was SELF. And also what really happens when things, considerations let’s say to be consistent in terminology, disappear?
First, borrowing from your metaphor, Vinaire, SELF exists as an onion in this space.
In this space, we have eliminated time, so each layer of SELF exists. (No layer dissolves from cognition, because without time, there can be no change.)
All of the components in the list exist, statically except cognition:
Perception-point
Consciousness
Attention
Perception
Visualization
Consideration
Cluster of considerations
Cognition?
Cognition might not exist without time. I’ll assume it doesn’t, for now, and leave it off the list.
All considerations exist simultaneously.
The Perception point (desire to know), exists.
So, desire to know exists.
Desire to know could arguably be at the center of the SELF onion. But set that aside for now.
Bring the onion back to our problem space, which has time, and now the onion is in motion with cognition blowing away layers all the time until eventually the whole SELF onion reaches full cognition (at death) and merges back, disappears. MAYBE.
But does desire to know also go away at that point?
I don’t think so. Let’s go back to the timeless space. Take this new snapshot of the imaginary onion of SELF, right at the point when total cognition has occurred and transform it back to our space that has no time.
Now the list looks like this (maybe):
Perception-point GONE (so desire to know is gone)
Consciousness GONE
Attention GONE
Perception GONE
Visualization GONE
Consideration GONE
Cluster of considerations GONE
Cognition? STILL THERE
All that’s left is cognition.
So, cognition exists after annihilation.
Now, bring the only thing from the onion that still exists, cognition, back to the problem space that includes time.
Cognition… what does it do next? It separates and desires to know.
What I’m getting at, or trying to get at it, is something of the SELF persists, I think, and perhaps it is cognition. Perhaps our eternal, individual cognition moves through various perception points as it cycles through this process.
Other thoughts I’m pondering:
What composes the space? Is it consciousness? What is the atmosphere or space in which the onion exists?
Thank you again, and warm regards,
Nia
Hmmmmm! The first thought that came to me is I need to look up Laplace Transform. It is about time. The second thought is that Nia, you provide a new angle of looking. It is wonderful.
Thanks.
.
Hi Vinaire,
Thank you! Like the new additions today too. Will contemplate.
Have a nice day.
Nia
Let me put the above sequence of definitions against the sequence in INCONSISTENCY
Perception
Experience
Information
Hypothesis
Theory
Principles
Axioms
Self
I don’t know if it would lead to anything or not… but we’ll see because here we are looking at that onion too.
.
.
Nia: This eliminates the confusion of the apparent sequencing of events in time.
Chris: This sequencing is one of the enigmas that I wrestle. You see, when I look at this sequencing discretely, I have no particular feeling for what occurs at the beginning or the end of the frame, nor what then hooks the frames together – I have no intuition of what comprises the film strip tying the frames together. But if I look at it continuously, then I get a cyclical; rotating; spinning sensation to the sequencing of frames. I don’t think it has to be one or the other or neither or both – to the degree that we acquire paradox then I lean toward neither with possibly a bit of each plus something else going on.
I’m not sure that taking time down to the zero helps me, though I do it too… Please tell me more where you are going with that thought.
Oh, and the Laplace Transform? So over my head, although your description of taking a complicated problem to a simpler place to solve and then replacing it is very much how I naturally solve problems.
Hi Chris,
That’s all I meant by the Laplace Transform, what you do naturally. It was a discontinuous leap of intuition though. It wasn’t an idea that developed from the step-by-step reasoning that led up to it. Differential equations is an area of Calculus that is built up step-by-step and gets to this point where all the preceding steps won’t solve the new problem. And this mathematician comes up with something totally out of the blue. That’s one point, and the other, the reason I brought up something so obscure, is that if you have solved a few differential equations (“Diffie Qs,” as we called them), then you are familiar with the feeling you get when you have changed the underlying assumptions upon which you are working the problems and as a result of that change the problem becomes easy. Then you transform it back, using the mathematical manipulation, into the place (as defined by underlying assumptions) you started. You bring back the problem and it is solved. It’s like a miracle.
This was what I wanted to use here and which finally helped me to understand several gigantic pieces of the puzzle.
One more note on Mr. Laplace: To even realize that underlying assumptions exist and that those might be limiting your ability to solve the problem, is amazing, and is applicable to what we’re doing here.
CHRIS: I have no particular feeling for what occurs at the beginning or the end of the frame, nor what then hooks the frames together – I have no intuition of what comprises the film strip tying the frames together. But if I look at it continuously, then I get a cyclical; rotating; spinning sensation to the sequencing of frames. I don’t think it has to be one or the other or neither or both – to the degree that we acquire paradox then I lean toward neither with possibly a bit of each plus something else going on.
I’m not sure that taking time down to the zero helps me, though I do it too… Please tell me more where you are going with that thought.
NIA: Okay, the zero thing comes in handy here: Chris: have no particular feeling for what occurs at the beginning or the end of the frame, nor what then hooks the frames together – I have no intuition of what comprises the film strip tying the frames together.
Yes, you are right, it’s a paradox, but let’s poke at it anyway. Who says you can’t poke at a paradox? It’s my favorite thing to do. What is it? What is tying the frames together? What happens between these frames? My answer is manifestation. The seemingly continuous nature of it is probably created by the perception point. I don’t think manifestation is in and of itself tied together in a cause-effect or sequential manner. I think there are manifestations and perception point organizes them according to its filters.
CHRIS: continuously, then I get a cyclical; rotating; spinning sensation to the sequencing of frames.
NIA: Yes!! Just trying to get myself out of the washing machine long enough to think…. that’s why I did the transform into a problem space without time. But yes, this sensation you have, I think it’s just right. Things (discrete manifestations) resolve so often to sine waves and other kinds of waves so often, in math, and when you are somebody who is observing reality so carefully as you are, perhaps when you relax your focus enough to let the discrete manifestations run together, you see a cyclical effect. The fact that you see this “rotating” and “cyclical”, which is described (graphed) in Calculus as waves, suggests you are seeing manifestations not just from the sharply focused perception point that most have. That relaxation of your focus to see the waves, is perhaps because you are seeing manifestations from multiple perception points or at least from a very relaxed, open, single perception point.
Back to zero. And infinity. We can be assisted in seeing what’s happening on the margins of the frames by the idea of integration in Calculus. When you are looking very carefully at manifestation and trying to get to where it stopped being B and was first A, you are looking at the margin between manifestation A and manifestation B and you are slicing time as thinly as you possibly can as you approach the margin between the two manifestations.
Integration is basically a Calculus definition or concept that involved a bit of a leap of faith. The idea is that you are cutting the curve (manifestation in our investigation) into smaller and smaller fractions as you’re trying to get closer and closer to the absolute beginning of the manifestation. You keep cutting the manifestation B in half. You’re getting as close to 0 as possible, to get to the start of Manifestation B. So you are making the slices smaller and smaller as you approach 0. 1/2 , 1/3, ¼, 1/5, 1/6, 1/7… Now the leap which gave us integral Calculus, what happens if you imagine the limit as when the denominator is infinity and the therefore the size is 0?
In Calculus, this limit gets solved and used in formulas to figure out stuff in engineering and physics, etc. But for our purposes, let’s keep going, there is a point at which you can add up all of the slices under the curve and get pretty close to the actual curve. That’s called Simpsons Rule, the first guy who was adding up small slices under the curve so you could then use the curve itself in formulas. Already this was useful.
Then, the inventors of Calculus made the leap with the concept of taking the limit of the function as the denominator approached infinity. Instead of adding up all the lines under the curve, as Simpson did, they smoothed it all the way by inventing this concept of the behavior of the function at the LIMIT just before the denominator reaches infinity.
I apologize if this is old hat to you, but it is, I think, a useful concept from mathematics that can help.
In summary, I think that manifestations are discreet and only resolve into continuity because of perception point looking at it through a set of filters. Our life experience I think of as a sort of soft focus because we remember things and build continuity of events in our memory, and we construct cause-and-effect, and we do all of this with our own considerations and the important filter of time.
If you get rid of time, you could look at all of these manifestations sort of frozen out there in space with no relationship between them. It’s an interesting way to look at them. And you may discover new things. And then you can turn time back on (transform the thing you looked at back into the space that has time as a dimension or filter) and you will still be able to see whatever it is that you learned in the temporarily frozen experiment.
One of the things I learned out there is that manifestations can actually be rearranged.
And that Integral Calculus is just another filter that makes many things appear as waves, which is useful to us, just as having a sense of time, continuity and cause and effect are useful to us.
But in actuality, we can see an event “before it happens,” if we go into that other space, because since there’s no time there, the event already exists. There is no “before it happens.”
Nia: what happens if you imagine the limit as when the denominator is infinity and the therefore the size is 0?
Chris: I got into this discussion on another blog whether .999… = 1. The opinions were split 1/2 and 1/2 right down the middle… among math guys. To me, discussing truth (consistency), I say no, it’s not equal. Of course, I’m not a math guy and it is equal for any practical purpose, Vinnie taught me that. And in your example of numerator being infinity, then I say the numerator must be infinity for the result to be zero. But practically? Sorry, I’m already out of steam this morning and thinking about the day’s work… I will put more time on this after while…
Nia: I apologize if this is old hat to you, but it is, I think, a useful concept from mathematics that can help.
Chris: Don’t apologize, this is not old hat for me. I’m going to spend more time on your post tonight.
Nia, this is an excellent explanation and a beautiful tie up between mathematics and philosophy.
What comes to my mind here is a computer program. The transform is like getting out of the computer program (where one is subject to time) and looking at the source code of the computer program (where time is frozen).
.
Vin: What comes to my mind here is the source code of a computer program. The transform is like getting out of the computer program (where one is subject to time) and looking at the source code of the computer program (where time is frozen).
Chris: Ah, now I get it.
Wow, I never would have thought about that! A great analogy, the source code! You and Chris always make me see things differently.
Thank you for the compliment. 🙂
Nia
Somehow I feel that to understand SPACE we need to look at the basic concepts in mathematics. I have started looking at them here:
Concepts in Arithmetic (Numbers)
.
I am looking at modifying the section on Perception as follows:
SIX: MANIFESTATION is thought to be there. It is what is perceived.
SEVEN: Perception is thought to involve a “perception point”. Thus there is the consideration of SELF.
EIGHT: Self is thought to be separate from manifestation. Thus there is the consideration of SPACE.
NINE: Perception, primarily, is thought to involve the considerations of SELF, SPACE and MANIFESTATION.
TEN: Perception appears to be THOUGHT considering itself. Consideration acts as a filter.
What do you say?
It introduces the new dimension of THOUGHT (unknowable or not!).
.
Hi Vinaire,
You have dropped the element of time! Bravo! The statements are all static now. It’s brilliant.
It’s closer to your original, which I always liked. You have added thought to the original. It’s an enhancement to just “is”. An important one. It allows us to get a closer look at the “atmosphere” of existence.
SIX: MANIFESTATION is thought to be there. It is what is perceived.
Nia: Nice and static.
SEVEN: Perception is thought to involve a “perception point”. Thus there is the consideration of SELF.
Nia: Yes, outward looking. Perception point is the center of the self.
EIGHT: Self is thought to be separate from manifestation. Thus there is the consideration of SPACE.
Nia: Yes, perfect.
NINE: Perception, primarily, is thought to involve the considerations of SELF, SPACE and MANIFESTATION.
Nia: Yes, perfect.
TEN: Perception appears to be THOUGHT considering itself. Consideration acts as a filter.
Nia: Would leave off last sentence as filter isn’t defined until later.
I am looking at modifying the section on EXISTENCE as follows:
ELEVEN: Manifestations, self, and space are thought to be present. Thus, there is the consideration of EXISTENCE.
TWELVE: Perception implies existence. There can never be perception of what does not exist.
THIRTEEN: Existence is perception of manifestation. In absence of perception existence cannot be determined.
FOURTEEN: Existence continues with manifestations changing continually.
FIFTEEN: Existence may appear to be permanent, but nothing that exists is permanent. And that is the actual reality.
Please check this out carefully for any repetition.
.
This is really good work as your statements seem to be getting cleaner and cleaner. A couple thoughts are:
Existence can be perceived discretely or continuously and also as both. The paradoxical quality of these perceptions point to as yet unnamed quality.
Existence can be perceived to begin and to end, but this is an apparency as what is before the beginning and after the ending is unknowable.
Existence seems to be perceived from a distance and thus the sense of a viewpoint is born.
The perception of this distance can change. The sense of this change in can be discrete or continuous. When this sense is discrete, location is born. When the sense is continuous, motion is born.
The sense of motion and of location are antipathetic to one another.
Motion, a continuous idea, is firmly attached to rate which is defined as a discrete unit of distance per discrete unit of time.
Motion is always expressed as rate.
Continuity is the imagination of: The unbroken and consistent existence or operation of something over a period of time. Also the state of stability and the absence of disruption.
Location can be thought of as here and there and also of continuously changing. But the perception point can never be other than discretely here.
Vin, I dashed these off in 20 minutes but getting them out is a process which drains me. The longer I write, the slower I go. I don’t know how you have the energy for this like you do. I experience fatigue and not sure why. As you can see, my statements get weaker meaning less consistent as they continue. There is something basic at work in this observation and seems related to Godel’s incompleteness. I seem to be able to write a consistent statement. Then striving for; reaching for some type of completeness, I seem to stretch out over multiple points of view, hold them still, and become tired. The metaphor would be making a single brush stroke with a dipped paint brush until it runs out of paint. The dryness of the brush being my fatigue.
Here is another attempt at looking at EXISTENCE:
ELEVEN: Manifestations, self, and space are thought to be present. Thus, there is the consideration of EXISTENCE.
TWELVE: When we try to view self, it becomes manifestation. And a new self seems to be created. Thus, neither manifestation nor self seems to be permanent.
THIRTEEN: The only element that may seem to be permanent is separation or space. But space is there only as long as manifestation and self are there.
FOURTEEN: Thus, existence is relative only. Existence is not absolute.
FIFTEEN: Existence is perception. Hallucinations exist as hallucinations.
I am trying to contemplate the fundamentals of existence.
.
Alright, so what is Existence?
FIFTEEN: Existence is the sum total of considerations..
Now we need to look at considerations.
.
Good. Another thing I’d like to look at is light.
To me, light is the disturbance in the fabric of space. Space is the consideration of separation between manifestation and self.
Light appears to be a second degree function, whereas the first degree function is consideration. Light seems to be the consideration considering itself. It is the beginning of the journey down the rabbit hole. It is the beginning of the condensation of consideration into increasing solidity and endurance.
.
NIA’s theory: Light = Consciousness = Awareness of something being there.
VINAIRE: Light = the beginning of the condensation of consideration into increasing solidity and endurance.
NIA’s alternative (contradictory) theory: Light is already there. Consciousness and light are there. Perception-point can occur because consciousness and light exist.
Re sorting the list of definitions:
Static definitions:
Consciousness = Awareness of something being there.
Light = Consciousness
Manifestation = knowledge up to formation of self. It is thought to be there.
Definitions that require change and therefore time:
Self = Thought to be separate from manifestation.
Perception-point = Symbolization of the desire to know and reunite.
Attention = Directed consciousness.
Perception = More specific awareness of ‘what-is’.
Visualization = Conjecture about ‘what-is’.
Consideration = Hypothesis about ‘what-is’.
Cluster of considerations = Theory about ‘what-is’. Cognition = Recognition of ‘what-is’. (Cognition causes annihilation.)
Ahh! I was thinking of light in terms of the electromagnetic wave. That way it is something physical that aids perception.
There also seems to be confusion between ‘what-is’ and ‘consideration.’
The original confusion may be due to non-acceptance of NOTHING. Nothing is known about nothing. That is unacceptable, so something is assumed about nothing. This may be the original disturbance.
This would be like the emergence of the ‘limit’ of a path or function as being discussed at Concepts in Arithmetic (Numbers). This becomes the ‘seed’. The ‘integral’ of this seed then unfolds as a path or function.
Whether this ‘seed’ is a consideration or not, is not known. But once it is there and perceived, further considerations appear about it along the path of how it unfolds. This is where all the above definitions come in.
There seems to be harmonics of those definitions coming into play as the unfolding takes place. This unfolding shoots out like a ray. Maybe that forms the light. I don’t know. This all is a conjecture.
In this business, I am always ready to throw away whatever I have thought earlier. Ha, ha!
.
I like the new theorems. They seem right.
But just for fun, I’d like to look at your first reply. https://vinaire.wordpress.com/2012/12/01/philosophy-project/?replytocom=8125#comment-8125
Very interesting about the “original disturbance.”
I think there is light we don’t perceive. That our physical senses only perceive a small portion of the spectrum.
I don’t think nothing really exists or that space is really empty.
I think there is consciousness/light extent in “empty space.”
I agree thought, the desire to reunite, perhaps as you say the inability to conceive of Nothing, creates space. Space is a joint effort of all thinkers though, not just one. Let’s say space is a collaborative result of all things extent. Instead of introducing “thinkers” let’s stick with “all things extent” or just all that is.
All that is, is space, is embedded in every smallest particle of the universe, at the smallest scale. All that is, is light, of which we only perceive with our physical senses, a small bit but of which we can perceive more, with our inner senses and knowing. (That’s a leap, sorry, let’s put on hold for now.)
VINAIRE: Whether this ‘seed’ is a consideration or not, is not known. But once it is there and perceived, further considerations appear about it along the path of how it unfolds. This is where all the above definitions come in.
NIA: Okay, I think you are saying all the definitions are in one category instead of two, as I had proposed (separating that out among static and changing). Then Consciousness, Light, and Manifestation are considerations too and that I am incorrect, that the Nothing is inconceivable but does exist and the emergence of separation or the seed is inexplicable.
Basically, I think we disagree about Nothing. (Now THAT is semantically tricky. LOL) I mean to say, I think Nothing is full of everything except time.
I agree about the imbalance and resultant disturbance and the beginning of all considerations. That’s brilliant.
That disturbance is the introduction of time. Then all the unfolding of considerations starting more considerations, is right, I think.
I think light and consciousness exist, without time, in Zero or Nothing. That’s why when you approach zero, you shoot off to infinite, which is everything. But when you get to ZERO you lose TIME. Everything is static there, in ZERO, but light/consciousness exist there.
I guess I’d move manifestation out of static into changing. Also I would redefine consciousness to support my theory better. 😉
So the list would be:
Static definitions:
Consciousness = Awareness [DELETE: of something being there.]
Light = Consciousness
Nothing = Static, unchanging Consciousness (and Light)
Definitions that require change and therefore time:
Manifestation = knowledge up to formation of self. It is thought to be there.
Self = Thought to be separate from manifestation.
Perception-point = Symbolization of the desire to know and reunite.
Attention = Directed consciousness.
Perception = More specific awareness of ‘what-is’.
Visualization = Conjecture about ‘what-is’.
Consideration = Hypothesis about ‘what-is’.
Cluster of considerations = Theory about ‘what-is’. Cognition = Recognition of ‘what-is’. (Cognition causes annihilation.)
The universe seems to come about because ‘nothing’ is an unacceptable or unstable state.
.
Vin: The universe seems to come about because ‘nothing’ is an unacceptable or unstable state.
Chris: Wildest conjecture today, but the day is still young.
And I’m conjecturing wildly instead of working on my novel. This Nothing is just too unstable and pulls for consideration more strongly than anything else!
Nia: And I’m conjecturing wildly instead of working on my novel. This Nothing is just too unstable and pulls for consideration more strongly than anything else!
Chris: Yes it does. There seems to be a clue in that for me.
That is why good mystery novels really sell!
.
How about ‘unknowable’ being unacceptable?
Ha, ha.
.
Vin: “How about ‘unknowable’ being unacceptable? Ha, ha.
Chris: Totally. When you wife asks you what you’ve been up to today and you say “ohh, nuthinggg.” Then laugh at unknowable.
Oh! She already knows that I am good for nothing.
.
Tell her she “can’t know that!” (OMG I hope she doesn’t read your blog!)
No, she doesn’t read my blog because it is good for nothing and I just waste my time.
So, you are safe!
.
whew! what a relief. That has leveled an inconsistency for me… the inconsistency of being found out!
Here is another attempt:
ELEVEN: Manifestations, self, and space are thought to be present. Thus, there is the consideration of EXISTENCE.
TWELVE: Manifestation is what is perceived. Self is what perceives. Space makes perception possible.
THIRTEEN: That this is so is a consideration.
FOURTEEN: Existence is the sum total of considerations perceived.
FIFTEEN: Existence is relative and not absolute.
.
I like it because it is simple, consistent and elegant.
.
Interesting context, ” . . . considerations perceived.”
I think I get it.
TWELVE: Manifestation is what is perceived. Self is what perceives. Space makes perception possible.
3 in 1 — did you purposely group these three?
It just followed from what went earlier.
Also, when you look at ‘self’ or ‘space’, they become manifestations. So, self and space cannot be perceived as such, only the consideration of it may be perceived.
.
This is in response to Chris
whew! what a relief. That has leveled an inconsistency for me… the inconsistency of being found out!
.
I know you are joking, but this reminds me of the concept of WITHHOLD from Scientology. Why do people withhold?
I think that people WITHHOLD because they are uncertain of the outcome if certain information is known. Therefore, they imagine an outcome which is unacceptable to them, and this prevents them from releasing the information.
That imagined outcome is probably justified by the circumstances in which that information would be released. So, the withhold is relative to the circumstance. It does not necessarily mean that what is being withheld is bad.
It simply means that one should not blame oneself for withholding something. One simply has to adjust the parameters of circumstances in which to release the information. Part of this readjustment would be to learn from what one is withholding by sorting out all associated inconsistencies in one’s mind.
.
In response to Nia:
It is obvious that we all have six senses: five are physical, and the sixth is mental. We just need to sharpen our senses and we would be able to perceive all that there is.
We are intelligent enough to make instruments and combine it with looking (per KHTK) to pretty much perceive what we suspect to be there but don’t perceive with our physical senses. So, what kind of light you suspect to be there, which we do not perceive?
Space is something; space is not nothing. Space is a medium that has certain properties, which determine the speed of light in space.
There are electromagnetic waves in space, which I see as a disturbance in the fabric of space, similar to ripples that come about when a stone is dropped in a sill pond. I still have to ponder upon consciousness being an earlier harmonic of physical light.
You bring up the point of “thinker”, which is interesting. What is a thinker? According to current KHTK model, a “thinker” would be a perception-point that is dissociated with considerations to some degree, and which is now examining those considerations for what they are. It is not making any logical associations. It is rather dissociating whatever associations there are to grasp the underlying layer of considerations.
[To be continued…]
Hi Vinaire,
You’re leading right into my next question with this:
similar to ripples that come about when a stone is dropped in a sill pond.
I will get back to you with thinker and light. I have had a sort of amazing breakthrough after this morning’s speculation here. Will be back to tell you.
Cheers,
Nia
Oh! I love a happy contributor to this blog. 🙂
.
In response to Nia (continued):
.
So, the “thinker” is essentially the “desire to unite” that is looking beyond the “conditioned” associations of our thoughts (which act as filters). The “desire to unite” seems to be the tension created with separation. Maybe, after the union occurs, the “desire to unite” will swing to the other side and will become the desire to create (separation). This is just a thought from the model in my mind. Looks like the ultimate phenomenon is also wave-like.
The prime illusion seems to be that of the “doughnut hole” or self. Even the “perception-point” is a “doughnut hole” where the doughnut is the “desire to unite”. So, let’s look at any idea resembling some kind of a “self” with caution. It is apparent only because of something else. There is no “Vinaire.” Vinaire is apparent only because of some tightly knit considerations in operation. This is easier to see when interacting on Internet, as the body is not there causing distraction.
So, we’ll take your suggestion to not get distracted with the idea of thinkers, and look directly at the considerations.
To me, the disturbance called light converts into photon as it tries to move faster than the “speed of light”. A photon is the resultant “shock”. Maybe there is similar reason behind the creation of other particles. The Higg’s field is basically another name given to the old concept of ether as the fabric of space.
The disturbance is something of a higher degree that moves relative to whatever field acts as the fabric of space. It is internal to the structure of space. What is the structure of space? All particles seems to precipitate from space.
Backing to earlier harmonics, a thought may be looked upon as a particle that precipitates from some kind of an earlier harmonic of space. What could that be, I have no idea. I am just going by the principle of harmonics.
Both static and non-static are considerations. Time is also a consideration. I do see manifestations, perception-point (self), space, disturbance, light, etc., all as some kind of consideration. Consideration is being used in a very general sense. In actuality there is a very wide range of considerations similar to wide range of fgrequencies in an electromagnetic spectrum. Sorry, I am not being very precise. I am just trhrowing these ideas out. Some of them might stick.
I am sure there are many categories of considerations, and we are going to run into them very soon, but at this stage the general idea of consideration might suffice.
There is a lot to understand about Nothing. We may just be scratching the surface of it at the moment. There may be infinity of earlier harmonics of what we are calling considerations. These harmonics may be stretching back into Nothing but we have not uncovered them yet. Time may have harmonics too. All this makes the mind boggle. This is the effect of fractal whose structure is yet unknown.
I am glad that you are keeping track of all those definitions. That is the organized author in you. Maybe you could make a mystery novel out all this deep abstraction that we are looking at.
More power to you.
Affectionately,
Vinaire
.
Good synopsis.
Hi Vinaire,
Well this is a very juicy post with lots of ideas I can’t wait to dig into!!
Thank you for the idea of the mystery. I have a book idea that came to me in December. Then I had a breakthrough thought a couple weeks ago from what I’ve learned here (forgot to mention that, sorry) and it showed me the conceptual framework for that book. Genre… I was thinking romance (always!) with a sci-fi twist… I NEVER would have thought about a mystery! (They’ve always intimidated me, but maybe I could do it.) So thank you!
I have a busy day but I will be back, probably Monday, to engage in these ideas and explain my two breakthroughs from what I learned here and how they helped me with my writing.
Quickly, yes, the Internet makes it easier to engage mentally and what a miracle it is indeed. Here we’ve pondered many things separately in our lives but with the Internet… somehow Chris found my blog and here we are, bringing our different backgrounds (and talents) together in this exploration.
Before, I thought I had it all figured out, at least all I needed to know. Now, I realize that by going into further depth and to the outer reaches, my life and my work expand greatly.
Warmly,
Nia
Nia: Before, I thought I had it all figured out, at least all I needed to know. Now, I realize that by going into further depth and to the outer reaches, my life and my work expand greatly.
Chris: That is a paradox busting realization.
And paradigm busting too.
Oops… That’s actually what I really meant!
Okay, now I totally get it, and agree!
Ha! Now we have two happy participants of KHTK… Chris and Nia. We are expanding.
Isn’t it amazing how different talents can harmonize so well with each other, when focus is placed on the subject and not on participants! All discussions go bust when one puts the attention on the “doughnut hole” and not on the doughnut as covered in Discussions and what needs to be avoided
There should be no consideration (which is a part of the doughnut) so sacrosanct that it cannot be examined. If there is an inconsistency then one should be able to examine everything associated with it unconditionally. Even when one doesn’t voice it externally, one should be able to examine it internally. Why hide anything from oneself?
I like romance. I like adventure. I like mystery. But all in good taste. I love clarity. I love consistency. I love beautiful minds. I love the essence of things. The outer layers can be beautiful but there is much more beauty and grace that goes deep.
I would love to know, Nia, what these discussions inspire in you to write. Yes, it is amazing how we three happened to meet. Without Internet that would not have been possible. And you have been a wonderful participant.
Chris has been a wnderful participant too. Three is company. Now I can look forward to expanding this KHTK group on Internet. The more the merrier.
Warmly,
Vinaire
Buckminster Fuller said:
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
.
Buckie! I haven’t heard from him in awhile! Thanks!
By the way, more amazing things happened today. I explained my breakthrough to a new friend and fellow writer and her eyes sprang wide open and she practically ditched me at lunch to rush home and write and she’s going to tell her critique partner who also has problems with the blank page and she wants me to teach a workshop!
And I didn’t think I could even explain it.
Ha! I love your enthusiasm! How did you explain it?
.
I’m going to tell you all this as soon as I meet my 2 week writing goal. I have to report to my critique partners tomorrow and I’m way behind. Mostly due to returning changes to an editor who is interested in a story of mine. So that’s legit, but still, I have to earn the right to come out and play again. Monday at the latest.
OK. I am sure you’ll be able to manage it.
.
Hello Vinaire and Chris,
So, the last 2 weeks. Paradigms: when one falls, more seem to follow.
But when a paradigm falls and we accept a new paradigm, we have the freedom to pick up the old paradigm and keep it. With knowledge there is the power of true choice.
It’s going to take some time to go over your big post, Vinaire (https://vinaire.wordpress.com/2012/12/01/philosophy-project/?replytocom=8203#comment-8162). [It would be nice if you could format that into a tidy link, not sure how to do.]
Today I’ll start with Thinker, hoping eventually to get to Harmonics and the ripples in the pond.
Thinker: You abstract it to the point that I think we agree, but then, I am not sure. To be clear, I do not mean human being by Thinker. I think the smallest particle of the universe has consciousness, or in your terms, desire to know. Possibly we differ on this premise. It’s a hidden assumption that influences subsequent musings, so important to understand. When you think Thinker, do you think person, human?
Now for the breakthroughs I have had from this engagement here on The Philosophy Project and Concepts in Arithmetic (Numbers):
That the fertile imagination within our minds is like the fertile atmosphere that nurtures our existence. As life springs forth exuberantly with the purpose of fulfilling its greatest potential in an environment that nurtures the greatest degree of fulfillment of that potential, so too may our observations and perceptions enter the fertile and supportive atmosphere of a clear, attentive mind and give rise to new thoughts, ideas and creativity in never-ending, fulfillment of potential.
That we, our bodies and minds project forth from the eternal source and so are of its nature, living extensions with unique ever-changing perspectives, highly focused and adding to the source behind, before and around us, and we do this just by being, and the more present and aware we are, the more sensitive and open we are, the more we are like it, the more we are our true selves and the more that which we create achieves our greatest potential.
For when we align ourselves with an open and quiet mind, like tidepools, we are open to the waters of reality to fill us with the perfect expressions of a particular focus, with as much of the ocean-of-reality’s greatest potential as our pool will allow at that time and focus,. And that those waters are always changing, filling us with perfected potentials in an ever changing, fluid match to the shape our pool takes in that moment of focus.
All that will be already exists and by looking at the transformed reality with time eliminated, we can see all that is, possible events and physical objects, for all are only possible, not predetermined, and we can choose and select from among them, transform ourselves back into a timeframe and align ourselves with those objects we have chosen, moment by moment, until, in time, they manifest themselves in our lives.
For example, the completed book already exists and we just need to align ourselves with it, in an iterative and ever-closer approximation until it is fulfilled, like a sculptor chiseling away the stone until the ideal sculpture, the one chosen by the artist, of all possible completed forms, is realized and released.
That when we align ourselves with our chosen, perfect fulfillments, resistance ceases to exist, the outer shell that separates us from perfection annihilates, and the perfection manifests.
As ever, thank you for stimulating these exciting new realizations and co-exploring “…all experience [which] is an arch wherethro’/Gleams that untravell’d world whose margin fades/For ever and for ever when I move.” (Alfred Lord Tennyson, Ulysses, 1833)
Warm regards,
Nia
Hi Nia, you can embed a long link under a phrase as follows (Note: I shall use ‘[‘ and ‘]’ in place of ” respectively):
[a href=”long_link”]phrase[/a]
Make sure you use ” where ‘[‘ and ‘]’ are used above.
The ‘long_link’ shall be embedded under ‘phrase’.
Check this out: Vinay’s link
Now try doing this yourself.
.
Nia, this is a lovely statement: “With knowledge there is the power of true choice.”
To me, ‘thinker’ means the perception-point which symbolizes the ‘desire to know’. This perception point may attach itself to particles and considerations.
When I think of perception point (which you refer to as thinker) I do not think of person or human. To me a person, or human, is made up of particles and considerations.
Do particles and considerations have consciousness in themselves? I don’t know. These things are manifestations which are the flip side of perception point.
Imagination seems to involve the process of separation by which manifestation, perception-point and space comes about. This is the fountain of life. This is the infinite potential manifesting itself. This is the BRAHMA of Hinduism.
And then the perception-point observes the manifestations combine themselves in myriads of different ways creating all kind of complex patterns overlayed upon each other. This is the play of life as it courses forward. This is the VISHNU of Hinduism.
And then the perception point reviews this labyrinth of complexity, looking for, discovering and dissolving inconsistencies. Out of all that complexity there emerges a beautiful and powerful simplicity. This is the SHIVA or MAHESH of Hinduism.
Here we have the eternal cycle of ‘coming forth – moving forward on a playful course – and dissolving’ which repeats itself endlessly. This cycle was first expressed in the ancient VEDAS. Aren’t you looking at this very cycle in your own way?
This can get very complicated as cycles pile up upon cycles. As we know from the FOURIER SERIES, you may end up with all kind of different forms and shapes with these cycles. Thus, one may create a beautiful existence, and you may have a beautiful story.
What you write reminds me of the following from the essay THE NATURE OF THOUGHT:
When a thought is consistent throughout it is like a laser beam that can penetrate anything.
A creation that is consistent throughout has a power of its own. It may be soft like velvet and then hard like iron in the next moment, but there is a beautiful consistency to it. It is consistency that leads us to our true selves. That self is effortless. It is simply being.
I am simply repeating what you wrote more beautifully. There is romance in the words you write, Nia. The sculptor chiseling away is a perfect rendition of the process of writing a book, and that quote from Tennyson is just right. I am so proud of you, Nia.
Affectionately,
Vinaire
Hello Vinaire,
Your thoughts are like laser beams that can penetrate anything. They provide a consistent, logical foundation that allows me to fly and then come back to earth and remember where I was!
You compared the discussions here to rays. It seems just like that to me. And so exciting.
I am amazed how you relate what I say to Hinduism, which I have not studied. I was going to pop in today to say I think it’s interesting how we are able to develop so much thought together even with different philosophies. But now I see this post and even that statement seems like a paradoxical paradigm! (I thought our philosophies were different, but now I’m not sure we have philosophies at all.) But it is valid to say we have read different books, ;). And some of the same! I loved Fourier Series, though I’ve forgotten most of it. I need to look at series again.
I am practicing making a link. I think you meant an angle bracket, based on inspecting the element of your example. I think you meant:
open angle bracket a href=”long-link”phrase close angle bracket open angle bracket slash a close angle bracket.
Hopefully, this won’t explode.
I’ll be back on the rest of the “juicy post” and The Nature of Thought. Which is amazing.
Warmly,
Nia
Nia, Thanks for being here.
You may embed the link as follows:
Open angle bracket a href=”long-link” close angle bracket phrase open angle bracket slash a close angle bracket.
This is slightly different from what you wrote.. It won’t explode. 🙂
.