.
.
CHAPTER 1: Objective and Subjective
“The existence in us of psychic life, i.e., of sensations, perceptions, conceptions, reasoning, feeling, desires etc., and the existence of the world outside of us—from these two fundamental data immediately proceed our common and clearly understood division of everything that we know into subjective and objective.”
~ TERTIUM ORGANUM, ~ P.D. Ouspensky.
.
Is reality truly that which is objective? Is reality falsely colored by what is subjective?
Objectivity is generally defined as “the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject‘s individual feelings, imaginings, or interpretations.”
Subjectivity is generally defined as “the condition of being a subject and the subject’s perspective, experiences, feelings, beliefs, and desires.”
A subject is an observer whereas an object is a thing observed. Objectivity means perceiving an object for what it is. Subjectivity means adding distortion or color to what is there.
The ultimate definition of objectivity is given by Kant as “thing-in-itself,” This theoretical absolute in objectivity is beyond sense perception because even the very act of perceiving seems to shape our experience of things.
We shall never know the object, which is there, in an absolute sense. Our perception will always be subjective to some degree.
To objectively understand what is really there, we should observe things as they are without known assumptions, expectations, or speculations. In addition, we should always remain alert for unknown subjectivity, and make corrections for that subjectivity wherever it is found.
This is mindfulness.
.
.
CHAPTER 2: Real and Unreal
“Tell me one last thing,” said Harry. “Is this real? Or has this been happening inside my head?”
Dumbledore beamed at him, and his voice sounded loud and strong in Harry’s ears even though the bright mist was descending again, obscuring his figure.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean it is not real?”
~ Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, ~ J.K. Rowling
.
What is real as opposed to unreal?
Our sense of reality is formed by what we perceive through our senses. We see, hear, taste, smell, and touch. At first there is consciousness of these sensations. Then there come about associations among them. From these associations emerge names and forms and recognition of what is there. As we associate further and conclude, we move farther from the concrete toward the abstract. So, we first get planets moving in space, and then we get mass, principle of gravity, and theory of relativity.
Thus, our sense of reality is formed by our physical sensations and the associations among them. The physical senses lead to the awareness of physical objects, such as, tables, chairs, trees, planets, suns, etc. The mental associations then lead to the awareness of mental objects, such as, names, forms, properties, theories, principles, etc. In this manner, the reality progresses from the concrete (physical objects) toward the abstract (mental objects).
During this progression, reality is maintained through consistency. We make conjectures when we are puzzled by some natural phenomenon. We then test that conjecture by making predictions from it, and then devising experiments to see if those predictions can be observed independently. Any conjectures that are inconsistent with observations are discarded. Those conjectures that prove to be consistent are then refined further by repeating this cycle. This is known as the scientific method.
Reality is both concrete (physical) and abstract (mental), as long as there is consistency among what is perceived. Unreality comes about only when there is inconsistency.
We all imagine. The faculty of imagination is very real. The product of imagination is unreal only when it is inconsistent with perception.
We look upon fiction as unreal, although we use it to entertain ourselves. A closer inspection shows that fiction becomes unreal only when we mix it with facts generating inconsistency.
Again, we look upon pretense as unreal, although we find that people use it to get their way. A closer inspection shows that pretense is unreal only when accompanied by inconsistency.
Anything that we perceive, whether physical or mental, is an object in a relative sense. It is real only to the degree that it is consistent with all things perceived.
Ideas, thoughts, mental images, etc. are mental objects. We perceive them just like we perceive physical objects. So they are part of reality. The unreality is simply the presence of inconsistency among what we perceive.
.
.
CHAPTER 3: Known and Unknown
“So he was always in the town at one place or another, drinking, knocking about with the men he knew. It really wearied him. He talked to barmaids, to almost any woman, but there was that dark, strained look in his eyes, as if he were hunting something.
“Everything seemed so different, so unreal. There seemed no reason why people should go along the street, and houses pile up in the daylight. There seemed no reason why these things should occupy the space, instead of leaving it empty. His friends talked to him: he heard the sounds, and he answered. But why there should be the noise of speech he could not understand.”
~ Sons and Lovers ~ D.H. Lawrence
.
Does subjectivity leads to unreality?
According to Kant, the very act of perceiving adds a degree of subjectivity to what is perceived, so we would never know objectively what is really there. Does that mean that what we perceive is colored and distorted? Not necessarily. It simply means that the object perceived is relative and not independent of the act of perception. We are getting a glimpse of this phenomenon in quantum mechanics.
We should not confuse subjectivity with unreality. Subjectivity may not contribute to unreality because we are aware of it. We can adjust our view for known assumptions, expectations, or speculations. The unreality must come from something else that we are not aware of. If it were known we could very simply get rid of unreality. Let us refer to that unknown influence by the term filter, because it filters the perception of the manifestation.
What we perceive consists of both objective and subjective elements. For example, the planets are objective, but the Law of Gravity associated with them is subjective. We are aware of these elements regardless of them being physical or mental. Therefore, to be more precise, let’s refer to them as physical and mental objects. They are well within the range of our knowledge. What we do not perceive is the filter that influences reality. By its very nature this filter is not within the range of our knowledge.
A filter may be defined as the prejudice or assumption through which we look without being conscious of it. These filters are well hidden. They are different from subjectivity.
It is the unknown filter, and not known subjectivity, that leads to unreality.
The presence of filters is indicated by inconsistencies we happen to note. They are accompanied by a sense of unreality. We perceive these inconsistencies among the physical and mental objects present.
We may be able to resolve the filter by resolving these inconsistencies one by one. This requires mindfulness as mentioned in Chapter 1. It is a continuous process and not a one shot deal. As we continue to resolve inconsistencies, our perception of reality improves. The filters finally drop out when mindfulness is practiced.
The boundary dividing the external world (objective) from the inner life (subjective) is neither relevant nor significant. The only significant boundary seems to be one separating known objects from unknown filters.
It is that boundary, which is relevant to recognizing and dissolving unreality.
.
.
CHAPTER 4: Existence
‘Then you should say what you mean,’ the March Hare went on.
‘I do,’ Alice hastily replied; ‘at least – at least I mean what I say – that’s the same thing, you know.’
‘Not the same thing a bit!’ said the Hatter. ‘You might just as well say that “I see what I eat” is the same thing as “I eat what I see”!’
‘You might just as well say,’ added the March Hare, ‘that “I like what I get” is the same thing as “I get what I like”!’
~ Lewis Carroll (1832 – 1898)
.
Existence would consist of everything. It would include all that is objective and subjective, real and unreal, known and unknown. Objects that are manifested are obviously part of existence. Their perception is also part of existence. And the unknown filter influencing that perception is part of existence as well.
Manifestation and perception are not independent on each other. The filter, which separates them, seems to be invisible and unknown, but one has inkling of it through the distortion in the perception of manifestation. A filter is a manifestation in its own right that may be discovered and perceived.
The basic model of existence seems to be “Manifestation-Filter-Perception”.
Does everything fall inside this model? Can we perceive something that is not manifested? Can there be manifestation that can never be perceived?
To manifest is to make clear or evident to the eye or the understanding. If one can perceive something then it is obviously manifested by definition. A plant is manifested because we can see it sprouting from the ground. A feeling of awe is manifested because we can feel it. Imagination is immediately manifested as mental image. Illusion is manifested as distortion in reality out there. Even Kant’s “thing-in-itself” is manifested as a mental concept. All physical or mental objects, whether real or unreal, are manifested when we perceive them.
Whatever we perceive is manifested.
The filter, which influences reality, is not perceived; but its influence is perceived. That influence shows up as inconsistencies. It causes confusion and a sense of unreality. By following such indicators one may ultimately be able to discover the unknown filter. Thus, any filter, however much hidden, may still be perceived indirectly, and be discovered ultimately.
Any manifestation can be perceived even when hidden initially.
Manifestation, filter and perception seem to be different aspects of the same system. Manifestation and perception appear to be separate because of the intervening filter. When that filter is not there, manifestation and perception may reduce to the same thing.
.
.
CHAPTER 5: Manifestation
“I believe in everything until it’s disproved. So I believe in fairies, the myths, dragons. It all exists, even if it’s in your mind. Who’s to say that dreams and nightmares aren’t as real as the here and now?”
.
Anything perceived is manifested. All manifestations are part of existence. Manifestations may be categorized as physical objects that are part of the external world, and as mental objects that are part of the inner life. The subject of PHYSICS seems to deal with the study of physical objects. The subject of METAPHYSICS seems to deal with the study of mental objects. But Physics and metaphysics are not two different fields of knowledge. There is consistency between them in spite of some gaps.
Manifestations are perceived as being relative to each other, both in their position as well as in their duration. This gives us a sense of space and time. It then follows that in the absence of manifestation there would be no sense of space and time.
We have often wondered, “What is beyond space and time of this universe?” Kant postulates a ‘thing-in-itself’, which can never be perceived because it is beyond space and time. We notice that the moment we want to know what is beyond space and time; we get into speculation and postulation. Is there such a thing as Kant’s “thing-in-itself”?
Yes, there is Kant’s “thing-in-itself,” but only as a theoretical absolute. It is a mental concept which is consistent with observations. Like any mental object it has a position and duration relative to other mental objects. This gives us a sense of mental space and time.
Beyond physical space-time there is mental space-time.
As we look beyond physical space-time, we find ourselves in mental space-time. Have we really gone beyond space-time with the conception of Kant’s “thing-in-itself”?
Not really. We have moved from physical to mental dimension, but we are still within the manifestation-filter-perception system. There seem to be no escape from this model of existence simply because there is neither manifestation nor perception beyond this system.
The physical senses perceive ‘three spoons’, ‘three cups’ and ‘three plates’. Beyond this the mental sense perceives the pattern of three. And beyond that we have the sense of numbers and so on.
A manifestation seems to have a structure that starts with physical but rapidly develops into mental of finer and finer abstraction.
The whole of existence seems to be made up of manifestations that range from physical to mental of increasing abstraction.
.
.
CHAPTER 6: Perception
“Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic.”
~ Dune, ~ Frank Herbert
.
Perception is the starting point of existence because that is how we become aware of anything including ourselves.
Perception is always something relative to other things around it. We recognize what we perceive as an object. This we call being objective. But that recognition is based on its relations to other objects around it. This we call being subjective. Objectivity and subjectivity are not independent of each other.
Objectivity and subjectivity always go together, because objects cannot be perceived in isolation in some absolute sense. We think of the external world as objective, and the inner life as subjective. However, they are not separate from each other. There is no boundary separating them as we seem to assume.
Subjectivity comes from associations perceived among objects.
Associations perceived among objects are the basis of logic. When there is consistency in our inner sense of logic, things appear to be real. When that logic is violated we get a sense of unreality. Both reality and unreality depend upon the perception of associations among objects being consistent per some inner sense of logic.
Reality comes from consistency perceived among associations.
Reality is, therefore, subjective. It depends upon a sense of consistency in perception. We become concerned only when there is inconsistency, otherwise we don’t care. When the cause of inconsistency is perceived, consistency is restored automatically. It is only when inconsistency persists that unknown filter is involved. Upon the discovery of that filter, the reality is restored.
Perception is the starting point of awareness and reality of existence.
Aristotle called metaphysics “first philosophy,” and the physics “second philosophy”. It is obvious that the first philosophy encompasses the second philosophy. Any philosophy starts with perception and the consistency therein.
The primary task of philosophy, according to Aristotle, is to search for first principles, or “the first basis from which a thing is known.” By definition, a first principle is a basic, foundational proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption.
In this investigation of reality we start with the first principle of PERCEPTION. It is perception that brings awareness of what is there. It is followed by a search for basic associations among what is perceived. This leads to understanding of the nature of phenomenon or manifestation.
Since reality is based on consistency, the criterion used in this investigation is to ensure consistency at every step of exploration of what is perceived.
Past perception becomes knowledge. We carry it forward as part of our beliefs. When an inconsistency appears, all ideas, beliefs, assumptions, viewpoints, and feelings associated with that inconsistency should also be subject to critical examination in search for the unknown filter.
.
.
CHAPTER 7: Filter
“Mad Hatter: “Why is a raven like a writing-desk?”
“Have you guessed the riddle yet?” the Hatter said, turning to Alice again.
“No, I give it up,” Alice replied: “What’s the answer?”
“I haven’t the slightest idea,” said the Hatter”
~ Alice in Wonderland ~Lewis Carroll
.
The filter determines how we perceive the manifestation. Like an iceberg only the tip is visible in the form of some inconsistency. There is a sense of unreality, even when one can’t put finger on what is amiss. To discover what is hidden we must look more closely
A physicist looks at the outer space. There is no physical medium there, yet the speed of light is constant. Some piece of the puzzle seems to be missing. He makes it the subject of his research, because it is an inconsistency to him.
You are told that the end of the world is coming. The date of the apocalypse comes and goes and the world continues as it is. The underlying anxiety and the pronouncement of apocalypse is an inconsistency. There is something not quite understood here.
You see a person who is not aware of what is happening around him. He is living in the past. He is not real to most people as his attention is stuck in the past. This is an inconsistency.
A man finds life to be without purpose, yet he never had thoughts like this when he was young. This is also an inconsistency.
These inconsistencies seem to be little flags sticking out, indicating the presence of the unknown filter. To see what is there we break the area of inconsistency down into smaller areas, and start looking at each area more closely. We explore until we get a better definition of the inconsistency. We then break the inconsistency down more precisely and repeat the process of looking at each area closely. Some areas drop out and new areas show up. This provides further clarity to the inconsistency, and so it continues.
As one persists in looking closely, the hidden aspect of filter finally comes to view.
As inconsistencies are hunted down and resolved through the above process, the filter becomes less and less influential. There comes a point when even the filter is dissolved and one can see what is really there.
One then realizes that manifestation is just what the perception is. There is consistency throughout.
.
.
CHAPTER 8: Space and Time
“Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think.”
~ Across the Frontiers, ~ Werner Heisenberg
.
Space and time exist because manifestations are perceived as being relative to each other, both in their position as well as in their duration. If manifestations were absolute, or non-existent, there would be no space and time.
The location of an object is always relative to another location. As a minimum, the location of an object is referenced by the location of the observer. Similarly, the duration of an object is always relative to duration of another object, and, as a minimum, it is referenced by the duration of the observer. The absolute “location-in-itself” or “duration-in-itself” does not exist
Space and time depend on manifestation being perceived as relative.
A closer look, or overview, provides us with new information about objects. For example, the close-ups of insects, images through electron microscope, and views through Hubble Telescope are so striking that we are taken aback. Similarly, when we dilate or compress duration, we get new information about how phenomena transpire. This applies not only to physical but also to mental objects.
By controlling space and time we can obtain new insights into manifestations.
Was this “new” information always there as part of manifestation?
The answer is yes. People who are smart really know what they are looking at. They have a much finer sense of differentiation because they observe carefully. This gives them the ability to operate efficiently. Whether they are managing a company, or researching into a theoretical subject like mathematics, they perceive a lot more.
What does controlling space and time really means? It means positioning oneself to get a better look, or breaking down, or combining, sequences to see what is there. The idea is to scrutinize with mindfulness.
Anything that influences perception is part of filter by definition. Space and time influence our perception.
Space and time seems to be aspects of the filter that we all carry.
Even when objects are manifested in complete detail, space and time keep us from perceiving them for what they are. Knowing this we can start to get an idea of the nature of the elusive filter.
.
Comments
I think I have finally gotten started on this book after many false starts.
The contents of these first four chapters are still subject to change.
.
This is great Vinny. I’m going to spend some time on it a little later. Thanks for sharing it, I feel really invested in it! hahaha I can be the antagonist of your story!
I am counting on you being the antagonist. I want someone to rein in my runaway ideas. 🙂
.
It is my honor.
I have added the following chapter:
CHAPTER 4: Filter and Inconsistency
The old chapter 4 is now
CHAPTER 5: Manifestation and Perception
.
When we look closely at physical objects, new configurations manifest themselves that are surprising to perceive, for example, close up of insects, or images through electron microscope, or through Hubble Telescope.
Were these manifestations of physical objects already there?
Similar phenomenon seems to occur when we look closely at inconsistencies. New configuration of mental objects manifest themselves. New realizations come about that are surprising.
Were these manifestations of mental objects already there?
What does looking closely really means?
.
I believe that the manifestation is all there. We are simply not making as fine a differentiation at first. As we look more closely we are making a finer differentiation. This applies to physical as well as to mental objects.
People who are really smart in certain areas, such as, mathematics, they have really looked at those areas more closely. And so, they have a much better sense of differentiation in that area. That is why they are smart. So, experience matters a great deal.
Since the whole of manifestation is already there, and, potentially, we should be able to perceive the whole manifestation, we are perceiving an altered or less detailed version of it because of a filter. This could mean that the consideration of distance is part of the filter.
This makes “space” itself a filter. Is it possible to bypass the filter of “space”?
Is there such stuff as AKASHIC RECORDS?
.
I have added the following chapter:
CHAPTER 5: Filter and Space-Time
The old chapter 5 is now
CHAPTER 6: Manifestation and Perception
.
I have updated Chapter 6 to
CHAPTER 6: The Manifestation-Filter-Perception Model
.
Great job Vin, when I get some time, I´ll try to make something out of it.
Have you seen this Video?
No, I haven’t. Illusion is a category of mental object. What we perceive is either a physical or a mental object.
Illusion exists just like any mental object exists.
.
I do understand what you mean whey you refer to physical and mental objects. But my experience of physical and of mental objects requires assumptions on my part to differentiate. Otherwise, my experience of these is remarkably the same.
Physical and mental objects are there simply to explain subjective/objective and real/unreal.
.
Wonderful video Rafael. Really good get. I don’t know Korzybski but this video mirrors perfectly what I see plus I enjoyed his interjecting the word abstraction for illusion. His example is very clear.
Illusion seems to be a cross between abstraction and filter.
.
I’m a little weak on differentiating these terms… Say a little more on this?
I don´t understand this, please clarify:
If the whole of manifestation is already there, and, potentially, we should be able to perceive it by looking more closely, then it seems to the distance that is influencing our perception.
Looks like I missed out the word “be”. It should be:
“If the whole of manifestation is already there, and, potentially, we should be able to perceive it by looking more closely, then it seems to be the distance that is influencing our perception.”
The logic is simple:
(1) Filter is that unknown factor that influences perception.
(2) Distance seems to influence the clarity of perception. The same manifestation appears different at close quarters compared to how it appears from a distance.
(3) Then distance could be considered to be acting as a filter.
.
Ok clear now, Thanks
I have clarified it further in the OP. Hope it now reads better.
.
I have added the following chapter:
CHAPTER 7: Existence
.
I’m taking the rest of the week off and traveling to my daughter’s place in Galveston for her graduation ceremony this coming saturday. Maybe I will be able to put some time in on this over the next couple days. I want to as it seems your manifesto is crystalizing very well!
Congratulations on your daughter’s graduation. 🙂
.
Thank you Vinaire!
Congrats on your daughter´s graduation!! And my best wishes for you and your family! 🙂
Thanks Rafael!
I have made further improvements to Chapters 1 and 2.
.
Minor improvements have been made to Chapters 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.
Now I am ready for discovering Chapter 8.
.
This morning as I’ve been looking at this, I find no particular difference in my experience of subjective and objective reality.
Way to go! 🙂
haha How do you mean?
I have now revised the arrangement of chapters. They now exist as follows:
CHAPTER 1: Objective and Subjective
CHAPTER 2: Real and Unreal
CHAPTER 3: Known and Unknown
CHAPTER 4: Existence
CHAPTER 5: Manifestation
CHAPTER 6: Perception
CHAPTER 7: Filter
CHAPTER 8: Space and Time
Guess what the next chapter is going to be? Even I cannot predict. It all depends on consistency.
.
” Vinaire: “Guess what the next chapter is going to be? Even I cannot predict. It all depends on consistency.”
“I haven´t the slightest idea” Said Rafael, as he was mindfuly falling into the rabbit´s hole”
LOL! I thought it would be “Cause and Effect” but now it looks like it is going to be “Dimensions.”.
Seriously, Rafael, you got me started on this. In the beginning I was going to start with the simple model of “Manifestation-Perception”. There was no filter then.
See! What you have done!.
.
Hubbard: “Space is creatable by a thetan. He may also conserve, alter and destroy space.”
.
Thetan is a mental concept representing source of spontaneous action. Action occurs spontaneously. No source needs to be associated with it.
Space is not created by anything. Space is abstraction that represents relativity among manifestations.
.
Hubbard: “Space is the first condition necessary to action. The second condition necessary is energy. The third condition is possession or not possession.”
.
(1) Space accompanies any manifestation and represents the relative nature of that manifestation.
(2) As logical associations change among parts of that manifestation, the manifestation evolves, and space continues to represent relativity.
(3) As those associations become more structured and rigid, space continues to represent their relativity.
(4) Energy would represent changes in logical associations among parts of that manifestation.
(5) Each change in logical association would be a manifestation in its turn. So, the data we are dealing with has fractal overtones.
(6) Possession has to do with objects that retain their form. Here rigidity has entered fixing those logical associations.
(7) Setting of rigidity may be regarded as a manifestation in itself. And so we can really appreciate the fractal nature of this fundamental data.
.
Vin: (1) Space accompanies any manifestation and represents the relative nature of that manifestation.
Chris: Agreed. To me, Hubbard’s first act of beingness, to assume a viewpoint, and the second action of beingness is to extend from the viewpoint — points to view, is incorrect for the reason you’ve given. I think the first action of beingness is to (not sure of the wording of this) to manifest an abstraction of what is out there. Maybe you could help me with that if you get my meaning, help make my idea more clear. Now to be clear, I do not think the first thing to happen is for there to be a beingness. Rather, I think that a beingness appearing is late on the chain of what is occurring out there. I would really like to discuss this point and to hear at least from Rafael, Maria, Katageek, and I think it would be good for others lurking to pipe up.
(1) Beingness = manifestingness. Anything that is manifested is being. Therefore, beingness applies to all objects, such as, planet, tree, chair, table, etc. Beingness is not exclusive to “living” things.
(2) We call a beingness alive when we observe “spontaneous action” associated with it. All beingness, whether self-animated or not, come about spontaneously. If a beingness evolves then each step of that evolution is spontaneous.
(3) Thus, “spontaneous action” is associated with each beingness at some stage. “Aliveness” is an abstraction derived from the phenomenon of “spontaneous action.”
(4) Thetan, at best, is a symbolization for “spontaneous action.” The bottom line is that manifestation appears spontaneously. The ideas of cause and effect are simply the result of associations between two manifestations.
(5) All manifestations are relative to each other. There is no absolute manifestation. That means there is some inherent association among all manifestations. That association is manifested as relativity. This relativity is SPACE.
(6) SPACE forms the fabric of the filter that influences perception. Viewpoint perceives through this filter. If the viewpoint is unable to perceive, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the manifestation is not there. Filter, which is hiding the manifestation, is definitely there.
(7) Manifestation is not put there by the viewpoint, nor is space (the relativity among manifestations).
(8) The definition of space as “viewpoint of dimension” is questionable. In fact, a viewpoint is subject to relativity, or space. So it is not independent of space.
(9) Space is not created by the viewpoint. Space accompanies manifestations as they appears spontaneously.
Hubbard’s special connotation given to “being” is contrived and not consistent.
.
Perception is there even when perception point, or viewpoint is not there.
.
In my case I have to agree with you Chris, my first action of beingness, as far as I can recall, was to manifest an abstraction of what is out there, and that has been my main activity ever since, and I have nothing to prove I have made any significant advance yet…… Well yes, I may have made one advance: I´ve got rid of a lot of bullshit which I used to consider true and important. And to be honest and truthful, that is all I have so far.
Great!
.
🙂
Rafael: And to be honest and truthful, that is all I have so far.
Chris: My first awakening as a teenager was to this datum and after a lifetime of Scientology, I return to it yet again… Same here. My abstraction of purpose for being is pretty much summed up by what you wrote. And if my purpose for being is to discover that my reason for being is to unravel my reason for being, then we’re pretty much there. Cheers!
Ha ha ha !!!! you are killing me Chris!!! I´d say that deserves more than a toast, it deserves a full pack of beers!!!
We are the Unknowables!
.
Yep!
And we are giving Honor to our name!!!
We sure are! Maybe me the most since i know so little I barely know my name anymore!
It counts as mindful honourable contribution if you are not drunk.
Just checkin´ 🙂
Maybe, we are the universe looking at itself.
.
Maybe! This is pretty close to how I see it and what I mean when I say realities aren’t laid out very well. The abstractions we’re taught about what is out there are kind of bogus. Science comes closer and encourages us to look for ourselves.
Yeah, same here. The universe looking at itself is the most consistent view I can get at this point.
If I remember correctly, that was the main idea Carl Sagan was trying to express in his Cosmos Series, which he did beautifully, by the way.
Maybe so. Click link for Charles Gilchrist’s explanation of how he agrees. Maybe we ARE the universe watching itself — on behalf of the universe watching itself! haha
Shows beautifully how life is planned, and how fractals can be found in many different ways
Vin: (2) As logical associations change among parts of that manifestation, the manifestation evolves, and space continues to represent relativity.
Chris: I can’t add to this, yet. I like it and think we have to expand on “represent relativity.”
Relativity provides the most fundamental association among manifestations. It is very consistent and and starts out that way with perception. This is space.
We can observe the purity of this space in mathematics, and in any subject of pure research.
It is what I am trying to map in my essay above.
.
Vin: (3) As those associations become more structured and rigid, space continues to represent their relativity.
Chris: I think 2nd transformer has made some good contributions on this physics, possibly he will join in?
Vin: (4) Energy would represent changes in logical associations among parts of that manifestation.
Chris: Maybe I haven’t read far enough. It seems each of these points need a paragraph mostly of examples. I don’t see any inconsistency in this statement (4) but also don’t understand just what would be an example . . .
Example: Move your finger.
Manifestation could the finger and its background.
.
Vin: (5) Each change in logical association would be a manifestation in its turn. So, the data we are dealing with has fractal overtones.
Chris: In other words, each change in logical association occurs in quantum leaps.
Each manifestation could be conditioned by previous manifestation.
.
I don’t understand.
When a consideration is made on top of another consideration then the latter consideration contains the elements of the previous consideration.
.
Vin: When a consideration is made on top of another consideration then the latter consideration contains the elements of the previous consideration.
Chris: Set theory?
You may say that there are sets within sets within sets going forward, and an infinite series of super sets going backwards.
There is no absolute beginning. Even the concept of nothing seems to be relative.
.
Vin: Even the concept of nothing seems to be relative.
Chris: Yes, as in entropy. It would be a lot of entropy to reach a true zero wouldnt it?
Entropy is like settling down to the bottom of a curve. If there is no curve (conditions), then there is no settling down either.
.
Yes, and we have no example of “no conditions.”
Vin: You may say that there are sets within sets within sets going forward, and an infinite series of super sets going backwards.
Chris: If we say the Big Bang is the superset of the universe, this tills the mental fields and rejuvenates the soil!
What could be the super set of Big Bang?
.
Vin: What could be the super set of Big Bang?
Chris: There may be more kernels of corn in this bag of popcorn. Wouldn’t it really be something to come up with a thought experiment which could pierce this question? Possibly there is one on the horizon; one that can be set up after we find out more about this kernel of corn.
The key word seems to be relative. Can we jump out of relativity?
I don’t know, and I don’t think we need to know that.
My strategy is to keep resolving inconsistencies as they appear on my mental stack.
.
Vin: (6) Possession has to do with objects that retain their form. Here rigidity has entered fixing those logical associations.
Chris: Help me with this one.
You cannot possess something that will “slip through the fingers.”
.
Yeah, I’m stupid this morning – not following.
Possession means to be able to hold. The abstraction of this would be to have a feeling that you have it.
If something doesn’t maintain its form then you cannot hold it or have it in the form you want.
So, a thing must maintain the form in which it is wanted, before it can be possessed in that form.
.
Got it.
Vin: (7) Setting of rigidity may be regarded as a manifestation in itself. And so we can really appreciate the fractal nature of this fundamental data.
Chris: I think that “naive set theory” can provide some rudimentary help with this.
Hubbard: “For the purposes of processing, and possibly for many other purposes, space can be considered to be the equivalent in experience of beingness. One is as alive as he has space and as he can alter and occupy that space.”
.
The purpose of processing is to resolve inconsistencies. Inconsistencies have to do with logical associations that do not flow well. Space is a mapping of those logical associations.
Does space represent the experience of beingness? I think that space is the beingness. Space can be flexible or rigid depending on those logical associations.
.
SPACE is the fact of relativity among manifestations. We see it because it is there. We do not create it by taking a viewpoint.
.
Filters can grow exponentially between people trough agreement when they seem to explain something we don´t understand.
Filters seem to contain considerations that seem to explain away inconsistencies. A person then doesn’t even see the inconsistency.
.