The Nature of Form

Disturbance Levels

Reference: The Nature of Consciousness

NOTE: This graph plots the levels of any disturbance as a function of frequency. The disturbance levels are defined in terms of the doubling of frequency. The basic disturbance DL0 has a frequency of 1 (20). The subsequent disturbance levels (DL1, DL2, DL3 … DLn.) have frequencies of 21 (2), 22 (4), 23 (8) … 2n. It can be seen from this graph that negative disturbance levels may be postulated to exist with the halving of frequency. The frequency never reaches the zero of ground state. As long as some frequency is present, awareness is also present in some form.

Theoretically, awareness arises when ground state is disturbed. Awareness has a certain frequency, which gives it the form of “light”. And, thus, there is consciousness..

Awareness has a certain frequency, which gives it the form of “light”. 

The undisturbed ground state has no characteristics, definition or form. It is simply undefined. When disturbance is present, there is a frequency that has the characteristics of wave-length and period. These characteristics provide definition in terms of extent and duration. Thus there is form, which appears as finite against the background of ground state.

Any characteristic, definition, or form is finite relative to ground state. However, it may be considered to have a large range extending from “negative infinity” to “positive infinity.”

The form is defined by extent and duration against the background of undefined ground state.

 

The extent and duration of form are defined by the dimensions of space and time respectively. Since the basic form is defined against the background of ground state, space and time are also defined against that background. Thus space and time are differentiated from spacelessness and timelessness of ground state.

Extent and duration of form are defined by the dimensions of space and time.

 

This separation of form (from ground state) introduces the idea of a space-time boundary of awareness, which can still be conceived as infinite. This leads to the visualization of a spherical boundary on which any linear progression would appear to have neither beginning nor end. A spherical boundary also meets the requirements of symmetry in the absence of defining conditions.

This universe of awareness has a space-time boundary that is spherical.

 

As the disturbance levels increase, the frequency increases, the wave-length shrinks, and the period shortens. This provides denser forms. It is as if the disturbance folds over itself to provide the denser appearance. Thus there is a dimension of increasing density.

An atom could be visualized as a homogenous structure with the most condensed nuclear layer at the core and the least condensed electronic layer on the outside. This provides a picture of an atom with  layers of increasing density who spacing is tightly determined by the the frequency, wave-length, and period of the disturbance, Sub-atomic particles are likely to be generated when this structure of the atom is impacted.

With increasing frequency, denser layers of form emerge within the lighter layers.

 

As disturbance levels increase, the various layers of form interact with each other to generate complex forms. Thus come about an infinite variety and diversity of forms. The forms of houses, trees, roads, business, people, etc., come together through placement in space to generate a complex city. Similarly, the forms of musical notes may come together through sequencing in time to generate a beautiful melody.

The layers of form interact with each other to generate complex forms.

.

Next: Beingness, Viewpoint and Reality

.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • vinaire  On July 16, 2014 at 5:48 PM

    The initial form has barely any frequency and period, so its characteristics is limited to a very basic space-time. This is the whole of consciousness associated with the form. This is the viewpoint of the form. There is no developed thinking. There is no other intelligence. There is no other perception. This is all of God that there is.

  • vinaire  On July 16, 2014 at 6:03 PM

    This viewpoint is not a “point” in space. It is the whole of awareness of the form. It is awareness of the space-time characteristics of the form. It is spread throughout the space-time. It is aware of the extent of space-time.

    • Chris Thompson  On July 18, 2014 at 11:16 PM

      Do we agree that awareness is a kind of mirroring what is there?

      • vinaire  On July 19, 2014 at 1:02 PM

        To me awareness is a disturbance of the Ground State. It has a frequency and a period. It gets more involved as it develops.

        I have no idea what significance you are attaching to “mirroring”. What is awareness “mirroring” in the beginning when there is nothing but awareness?

  • vinaire  On July 16, 2014 at 6:32 PM

    Beingness would be the form and all its characteristics, such as, extent, duration and awareness, The awareness shall be limited to this beingness perceiving it as a very fundamental harmonic of light. At this basic level there are no developed characteristics, such as, thinking, perception of other forms, visualization of other forms, etc. Those chracteristics shall develop later.

    This is the most fundamental beingness. It is very raw and in no way does it resemble the God of Abrahamic religions or the thetan of Scientology. Those things come much later as the products of developed thinking.

    In Scientology, one starts with thetan as the fundamental reality. That leads to inconsistencies.

  • vinaire  On July 16, 2014 at 9:26 PM

    The initial beingness is basic light with raw awareness.

    Awareness arises because there is desire to know. Awareness is manifested as a light with barely a frequency and period. Its characteristics are limited to a very basic space-time and simple awareness of it. This is the totality of initial beingness. The appearance of beingness reinforces the desire to know, and the cycle continues.

    At the basic level there are no developed characteristics, such as, perception of other forms, visualization of other forms, or thinking by association of forms, because there are no other forms. The initial beingness is very raw and in no way does it resemble the God of Abrahamic religions or the thetan of Scientology. Those things come much later after the beingness has developed greatly.

  • vinaire  On July 16, 2014 at 9:38 PM

    As disturbance levels increase, beingness develops into that of atoms, minerals, plants, animals and humans.

    Current physics is trying to figure out how energy condenses into mass. There is a lot of research that needs to be done on this postulate.

  • vinaire  On July 17, 2014 at 6:08 AM

    (Wikipedia) Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated or interact in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently – instead, a quantum state may be given for the system as a whole.

    “Quantum entanglement” = The properties of an atomic particle depend on the properties of another, distant particle, even if there is no physical connection between them. When the properties of one particle change, the twin particle’s properties change too.

    This gets us to look at space and distance in a different way. This points to a different level of consciousness. It is like experiencing a very early disturbance level.at which the effect travels instantaneously.

    • Chris Thompson  On July 18, 2014 at 11:20 PM

      “It is like experiencing a very early disturbance level.at which the effect travels instantaneously.”

      Accordingly, without disturbance, no space-time. Without space-time, no travel, only potential-everything, if that even applies.

      • vinaire  On July 19, 2014 at 8:21 AM

        Without disturbance there is no awareness. At the slightest hint of disturbance of the ground state there is awareness of almost infinte wavelength and no periodicity, which means no time interval.

        So the phenomenon of quantum entanglement points to a very early disturbance level compared to the disturbance level of matter. We are looking at the velocity of visible light from the frame of reference of matter. We also take that the speed of information travel assuming that the fastest way of getting information is through vision.

        But the information can travel at disturbance levels other than visible light. The speed of light seems to be a function of its frequency. It seems to increase asymptotically at very low frequencies. That is just a conclusion that seems to emerge from the Disturbance Theory.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 19, 2014 at 3:27 PM

          “Without disturbance there is no awareness.” We are agreeing, aren’t we, that like God, awareness came later than existence, don’t we?

        • vinaire  On July 19, 2014 at 5:03 PM

          What is existing before awareness?

        • Chris Thompson  On July 20, 2014 at 12:06 PM

          “What is existing before awareness?” Stuff 🙂

        • vinaire  On July 20, 2014 at 12:21 PM

          We cannot know what is existing before awareness because there is no awareness.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 20, 2014 at 12:54 PM

          No, we don’t know directly, that is true. But if we look closely, we find that we don’t actually know directly but extrapolate from historical evidence. Maybe this is the root of re-search. I’m not sure how “thick” real time is considered to be but for a human nervous system, real time would have to be pretty fat.

          However, in this same way it seems reasonable to state that the processes of the world existed before I became aware. Also it seems reasonable to state that I can know from the historical records many things that existed before I became aware.

        • vinaire  On July 20, 2014 at 1:55 PM

          It seems that you are running into the same problem that Geir was running into regarding the concept of unknowable. An unknowable is just that without any qualifications, such as direct or indirect. Any extrapolation is simply speculation and that is a form of awareness. It is above the ground state. No speculation can penetrate the ground state. The more you approach the ground state the farther back it shall recede.

          We are not talking about a person’s awareness. We are talking about complete absence of awareness anywhere and everywhere.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 20, 2014 at 11:56 PM

          “It seems that you are running into the same problem that Geir was running into regarding the concept of unknowable.”

          Not so. It is not a problem concept for me but very elementary. With the supplemental use of neti-neti, knowledge of fractals, rudimentary understanding of conditioning, impermanence, and relativity, it is quite easy to assimilate the notion of unknowable. It is simply this: If you know about it, it is not unknowable. If you conjecture about it, one knows about one’s conjecture and that is all. One can easily stop discriminating about this subject. And a problem? Not at all. I am in a very good and relaxed place about this.

        • vinaire  On July 21, 2014 at 6:44 AM

          “If you know about it, it is not unknowable.”

          I don’t know about the ground state. The ground state is unknowable because it is beyond awareness.

          .

          “If you conjecture about it, one knows about one’s conjecture and that is all.”

          There is nothing wrong about a conjecture, such as, “all awareness is relative,” if that conjecture brings more consistency to the understanding of this universe.

          This conjecture shows that the God of the Abrahamic religions and the Static of Scientology are not absolutes. The concept of God and Static has been conjectures too. Now we have a conjecture that supersedes those earlier conjectures.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On July 22, 2014 at 12:34 AM

          I cannot think of an empirical reason to think so. Is this a type of wishful thinking? Why do we stretch so far for what we conceive of not-being when there is so much know actually about? This preoccupation with transcendence “outside the box” is Western philosophy. You would do well to dip into Eastern thought where immanence (my word for the week, I promise to use it in coffee shop conversation at least once this week) prevails! (friendly joking)

        • vinaire  On July 22, 2014 at 11:45 AM

          tran·scend·ent: Theology. (of the Deity) transcending the universe, time, etc.

          im·ma·nent: Theology. (of the Deity) indwelling the universe, time, etc.

          Transcendent and immanent are western concepts like theism and atheism. Neither of these concepts excite us folks from the East. 😉

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On July 22, 2014 at 2:50 PM

          “Transcendent and immanent are western concepts like theism and atheism.”

          Well then I guess Buddha went so far East he became West! hahaha

        • vinaire  On July 22, 2014 at 3:05 PM

          LOL! The Western Buddha will say, “The universe germinates from and so it is immanent in the ground state.”

        • Chris Thompson  On July 22, 2014 at 3:34 PM

          LOL!

        • Chris Thompson  On July 21, 2014 at 12:08 AM

          “We are not talking about a person’s awareness. We are talking about complete absence of awareness anywhere and everywhere.”

          From the “Song of Mahamudra” it is written, “The supreme Accomplishment is to realize immanence without hope.” I like this and find it to be quite profound and it contrasts with Western religion including Scientology which teach instead “transcendence” which fails itself as a conjecture about unknowable.

        • vinaire  On July 21, 2014 at 7:00 AM

          tran·scend·ent: Theology. (of the Deity) transcending the universe, time, etc.

          im·ma·nent: Theology. (of the Deity) indwelling the universe, time, etc.

          So what inconsistency do you see between the Song of Mahamudra and The Ground State of the Universe?

          One can realize “sound sleep” yet that state would remain unknowable because no trace of it is left in memory.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On July 22, 2014 at 12:37 AM

          “One can realize “sound sleep” yet that state would remain unknowable because no trace of it is left in memory.”

          Possibly we would need sophisticated instruments to look at this mental state, and though restful it may be, there is probably something there. We have to be mindful to see things as they are and not only as they seem to be.

        • vinaire  On July 22, 2014 at 11:54 AM

          There are no sophisticated instruments when the awareness is first arising out of ground state. 😉

          If there is BE – DO – HAVE, how does the BE come about?

        • Chris Thompson  On July 22, 2014 at 2:54 PM

          “There are no sophisticated instruments when the awareness is first arising out of ground state. 😉 If there is BE – DO – HAVE, how does the BE come about?”

          Like there are no new seeds being planted? All the new awareness has already occurred and there is no new budding awareness arising from the ground state? Does that seem likely? Be, do, have? Now quoting Scientology? Dude! What the devil are you doing? hahaha I get it, anything not to agree because that would ______ (fill in blank).

        • vinaire  On July 22, 2014 at 3:12 PM

          Axiom #1 represents a BE. Static is something that is aware. It is being.

          Ground state does not represent any beingness. There is no awareness. There is no being.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 22, 2014 at 3:55 PM

          “Axiom #1 represents a BE. Static is something that is aware. It is being. Ground state does not represent any beingness. There is no awareness. There is no being.”

          That is a cherry pick. So you can understand what I am saying or you cannot. Arguing over Hubbard’s use of it seems simply a violation of discussion policy. Physically, referring to static, neither is there any awareness or being either. In Physics, static is concerned with bodies at rest or forces in equilibrium. This seems the logical use of ground state. There will not be found any example of ground state of no disturbance. “Being” seems to be dynamic forces which seek to find an equilibrium also known as enlightenment. Here is another path to enlightenment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wu9dLanT4Zc

        • vinaire  On July 22, 2014 at 8:44 PM

          Any static or dynamic exists withing the universe only. There is no absolute static. There is no absolute dynamic. There is no “Unmoved mover”. It is just an assumption of Aristotle.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 23, 2014 at 12:23 AM

          So, no?

        • Chris Thompson  On July 22, 2014 at 12:48 AM

          “So what inconsistency do you see between the Song of Mahamudra and The Ground State of the Universe?”

          Maybe it is not purely a Western thought to hope for existence beyond what we can possibly know. When I think of immanence without hope, I think of seeing the human condition as it is and not as we hope it might be. This is quite a settled and clear-minded view. Yet I know I can do better. There is always a more fine wavelength to achieve. I have come to realize that while I do notice inconsistencies as I study, I rather look for why one study is similar and complements another. When I think of the teachings of Jesus, I do not particularly remember an angry man overturning money-changing tables in the temple, but a kind and generous teacher who fed and nourished hungry seekers of a better way. I have decided also to try and remember the bits that I took away from Hubbard that help and nourish me rather than as the paranoid and money-hungry power monger who could not be ass-kissed enough to satisfy him. That wound is more raw and takes more attention to mindfulness to experience those past events in the way I’ve described. Between you and me, it’s easy as you are trying so hard to weed through these mountains of thought inventions which have come before us. You are a good man with a good intention and if or when we don’t see eye to eye, I don’t care. It doesn’t put a dent in my affection for you. And I like your idea of ground state as I love metaphor maybe even more than you!

        • vinaire  On July 22, 2014 at 12:14 PM

          Immanence is “being”. How does beingness come about? Nobody is hoping anything here. It is simply a matter of thinking the thought through. The deepest one can go is unawareness. This is the ground state. Above the ground state is awareness. This ground state is theoretical. The whole purpose of this ground state is to remind us that no awareness or consideration is absolute in itself.

          This is what Buddha said,

          “The Absolute Truth is that there is nothing absolute in the world, that everything is relative, conditioned and impermanent, and that there is no unchanging, everlasting, absolute substance like Self, Soul, or Ātman within or without.”

        • Chris Thompson  On July 22, 2014 at 2:58 PM

          “It is simply a matter of thinking the thought through.”

          The thought has been quite well thought through and the culmination of neti-neti is that there is no culmination save for death. The resultant quotient of pi is to stop counting. Neither you nor I are in a position to gain overview of what we are not. In the words of Tommy Davis, “Buddy, you want ‘immanence without hope?’ Well buddy, you’ve got it, right here, right now!” hahaha (maybe I took some literary license with that quote, eh, so what.)

        • vinaire  On July 22, 2014 at 3:17 PM

          LOL! Poor Tommy!

          That is only if death represents no awareness. After death there may be no awareness as whole organism, but there is still awareness in terms of disintegrated components. Death is not nirvana.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 22, 2014 at 3:56 PM

          “Death is not nirvana.”

          How do you know this?

        • Chris Thompson  On July 22, 2014 at 3:58 PM

          “Death is not nirvana.”

          Think about it. Kurt Cobain died and his band is called Nirvana.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 22, 2014 at 3:05 PM

          “Immanence is “being”.”

          I don’t think so. That is an example Western conditioning. Immanence is “ground-state throughout.” And ground-state is relative to disturbance. This is more consistent than shooting for beings being static, etc.,. Though I do see a consistency in Hubbard’s static when the def. of no location, wavelength, etc. is used. Just not when it is used to describe an individual as a unmoved mover. We don’t want to rehash that, do we?

        • Chris Thompson  On July 22, 2014 at 3:09 PM

          ” “The Absolute Truth is that there is nothing absolute in the world, that everything is relative, conditioned and impermanent, and that there is no unchanging, everlasting, absolute substance like Self, Soul, or Ātman within or without.” ”

          Buddha is too Western, too new Age. This statement of his is not absolutely true and to that degree inconsistent. Like Hubbard, he seems to say one smart thing then later contradict that smart idea with another smart idea. This one is an example.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 22, 2014 at 3:14 PM

          “The deepest one can go is unawareness.”

          The deepest that human can go is unawareness. If that’s what you mean by “one” then we agree. When we understand that we not only do not understand but are not going to understand, I believe that is the deepest that one can go. That is immanence without hope. We are creatures of our current frame of reference. In my opinion, we should confront that.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 22, 2014 at 3:19 PM

          “Above the ground state is awareness. This ground state is theoretical.”

          Above awareness is more awareness. Below awareness is less awareness. There is nothing empirical that I know of to lead me to think that is truly a ground-state as you’ve described. The deepest logic to support this arrives at conjecture, nothing more. Welcome to my Tautological Universe. Seeing oneself as individual obfuscates the broader picture, that all systems and processes complement to arrive at the whole, and that is also a conjecture, though reasonable.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 22, 2014 at 3:25 PM

          “The whole purpose of this ground state is to remind us that no awareness or consideration is absolute in itself.”

          This seems fine. But unnecessary. Ground-state seems useful in a relative sense when combined with other considerations relative and needing a baseline. The problem is that ground-state can be used as something outside where it cannot be known. When used relatively, it can be known about and used as reference point.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 21, 2014 at 12:08 AM

          “We are not talking about a person’s awareness. We are talking about complete absence of awareness anywhere and everywhere.”

          For all of Elizabeth’s bluster on the subject, her pronouncements are about unknowable, which of course she does not know, but rather asserts. “. . . immanence without hope” is more mathematically correct and in accord with both Gödel’s Theorem and Heisenberg’s Uncertainty. I won’t belabor that but only assert it! hahaha!

        • vinaire  On July 21, 2014 at 7:19 AM

          I am glad that the words “immanance without hope” hit you just right in juxtaposition to what you thought earlier. 🙂

          It is relative.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 22, 2014 at 12:51 AM

          Yes it is relative. Do you also see its similarity to a mathematical interpretation as I do?

        • vinaire  On July 22, 2014 at 12:24 PM

          All mathematical interpretation shall be in the domain of awareness. Below that is the ground state.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 22, 2014 at 3:25 PM

          “All mathematical interpretation shall be in the domain of awareness. Below that is the ground state.”

          So, no?

        • Chris Thompson  On July 21, 2014 at 12:10 AM

          “We are not talking about a person’s awareness. We are talking about complete absence of awareness anywhere and everywhere.”

          We swim in an ocean or matrix if you will where even a quickly responding consciousness lags behind reality by quite a bit. Godel, Heisenberg, and Buddha to name a few help us understand the limitations of the individual and at the same time, the greatness of the entire system of which we are a part and to which we belong. All we are and all we can ever know about existence is temporal and late on the relative timeline of occurrence. There are many things to be learned from this and from the great thinkers who have come before and current ones who even now are working out puzzles that I have never even wondered about.

        • vinaire  On July 21, 2014 at 7:21 AM

          Sure! 🙂

        • Chris Thompson  On July 21, 2014 at 12:12 AM

          “We are not talking about a person’s awareness. We are talking about complete absence of awareness anywhere and everywhere.”

          It seems to me that if we settle down and relax about the whole thing that we can come a little closer to that ruler flat undisturbed ground state so that we may look a little closer and see its roughness. Then immanence without hope may envelope our temporal state and then, possibly then new vistas will arise. You like to say it your way and I like to say it my way. I see our views as being consistent with one another and you watch for the inconsistencies. This is discriminating in the Buddhist sense as laid out in Song of Mahamudra, possibly that is something to be regarded, looked at. Regardless, it’s all good. I think it’s important to see ourselves for what we are and where we are and then we can begin to begin.

        • vinaire  On July 21, 2014 at 7:37 AM

          The realization which would bring one to the ground state would we relative to what one is sitting in “above the ground state”. Therefore, the realization, one may say, would be individualistic for each person.

          The puzzle has always been how to lead one to that realization that is so individualistic yet which opens the door to enlightenment. All the great masters have presented a solution but it still requires individual search like finding the hidden door in a large, dark hall. It may not be the same door for each person, but once opened, it leads to a wonderful new reality, which brings into simple perspective everything one knows.

          I am just trying to present all the previous understandings of Masters in a scientific way.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On July 22, 2014 at 12:57 AM

          “I am just trying to present all the previous understandings of Masters in a scientific way.”

          I am totally with you. With regard to science, and with regard to immanence without hope, this is Godel and Heisenberg at their finest. These principals can also show us that from where we exist, there is no hope to see the human condition outside the set of humanity. I like to think of this being held in reserve for a later, future set of evolution for man. I really hope that man continues and improves. What you are doing Vinay, with your massive blogging and research is to leave a legacy which just might make a difference in the long run, that’s what I hope. It is a good work with a good intention toward a better future.

        • vinaire  On July 22, 2014 at 12:26 PM

          That is why the ground state is theoretical. It is not something hoped for as you are assuming.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 22, 2014 at 3:26 PM

          “That is why the ground state is theoretical. It is not something hoped for as you are assuming.”

          Is there a reason, a value that this ground-state fills?

  • vinaire  On July 17, 2014 at 6:33 AM

    Chris Thompson: https://vinaire.me/2014/07/14/the-nature-of-consciousness/#comment-25617

    Basically we are looking at a disturbance in some ground state. The disturbance starts and increases in frequency. If we take the ground state as the “reference point of no disturbance” than all disturbance levels shall appear as positive.

    When we start from the “reference point of frequecy 1” then disturbance levels of less than frequency 1 moving back up to 0 shall appear as negative in this frame of reference. For example, half (1/2) is mathematically, a “negative 1” power of 2. The quantity is positive, but the power of 2 that represents it is negative. The reason I am using frequency of 1 as a reference point is because it shows that frequency of 0 is theoretical. The graph goes asymptotically towards 0 but never reaches it.

    The negative disturbance levels represent the very beginning of disturbance. How the disturbance begins and how it looks like before it reaches a unit frequency, we don’t know. That would be an area of future research. For now we can research the disturbance of a unit frequency and greater.

    • Chris Thompson  On July 18, 2014 at 11:23 PM

      “The reason I am using frequency of 1 as a reference point is because it shows that frequency of 0 is theoretical. The graph goes asymptotically towards 0 but never reaches it.”

      That is a beautiful idea. I am yearning for time to work with it.

  • vinaire  On July 17, 2014 at 7:22 AM

    Beingness is inclusive of both form and essential properties.

    Beingness is “existing-ness.” A phenomenon exists as a spiritual essence with a physical form. The spiritual and physical aspects go together. They cannot be separated as some absolutes. A spiritual state will have physical form, no matter how subtle. And a physical state will have some spiritual characteristics, no matter how subdued.

    Thus, an atom has a physical configuration; and it also has certain properties that express its essence. Both of these physical and spiritual aspects go together to make up the beingness of an atom.

  • vinaire  On July 18, 2014 at 4:53 AM

    The consciousness of beingness is “I”, which constitutes the basic viewpoint.

    “I” consists of all of space-time in the beginning. It is essentially the consciousness of beingness as light and awareness. “I” is the basic viewpoint from which awareness expands through perception and recognition.

    The “I” of a mineral’s shall consist of the space-time its physical form occupies, and the awareness it extends through its chemical properties.

    The “I” of an animal shall consist of its physical form, and its interactions with its environment. It will include all its instincts and the functionality of its body.

    The “I” of a human being shall consist of the human form and its vast capacity for interactions. It will include his intelligence and skills.

  • vinaire  On July 18, 2014 at 6:27 AM

    The desire to know produces harmonics of disturbance, giving rise to different beingnesses and viewpoints.

    The desire to know is not satisfied with just having a beingness of light and awareness with nothing else to be aware of. Thus come about harmonics of disturbance of the ground state. This gives rise to different beingnesses of light and awareness, and different viewpoints.

    Thus, there are differences. There is separation of forms. There are boundaries between forms. There is perception of other forms. There is knowledge of basic forms. There is interaction of awareness, and with this interaction there is generation of complex forms, beingnesses, viewpoints and knowledge.
    .

  • Chris Thompson  On July 18, 2014 at 11:12 PM

    We have a long ways to start to understand the form of space. Of all the great assumptions, our assumption that everyone knows what is space is the greatest.

    • vinaire  On July 19, 2014 at 7:57 AM

      Space is a dimension of forms. It is not a form itself.

      Space defines the extent of forms. The most basic form is that of disturbance called awareness that has a wavelength and period, and which may manifest as some basic harmonic of light.

      • Chris Thompson  On July 19, 2014 at 3:24 PM

        “Space is a dimension of forms. It is not a form itself.” Precisely. This is the assumption. But is it true? . . . or how true?

        Because I can think of more variations on this. For instance, I could say there was a compressed singularity which contained the potential of space-time, which in due course unraveled to become seething plasma, which in due course condensed into bits which in turn condensed into bigger bits and the parts which were exhausted of some of the energy clarified and the clarified portion of spacetime is now called space and we pretend we know what that means.

        As to”form,” the space you are referring to could be said to be shaped precisely like the negative of the objects you claim to have form. You know, the space between the leaves in the tree has precisely that form.

        • vinaire  On July 19, 2014 at 4:57 PM

          If you measure the extents of a log, it tells you its space.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 22, 2014 at 1:08 AM

          “If you measure the extents of a log, it tells you its space.”

          And if we measure the interior volume of a sphere, we are measuring an amount of space or are we measuring an amount of the interior volume of a sphere and is there a difference? The breadth of the universe is said to be 14.7… billion years. What does this mean philosophically and socially? And what is it a measure of? This is fun to contemplate of what space is composed.

        • vinaire  On July 22, 2014 at 12:29 PM

          Space is a dimension. It is something abstract. The extents that are being measured are real.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 22, 2014 at 3:30 PM

          “Space is a dimension. It is something abstract. The extents that are being measured are real.”

          Defining space as some kind of empty void between objects is an abstraction and I think, short-sighted. That is seeing “nothing” where there is actually “space.” Space is something, and for me, one of the more basic somethings. This idea can take a little warming up to.

  • vinaire  On July 19, 2014 at 6:34 AM

    I am realizing that a form is made up of space-time. It then exists in a space-time populated by forms. Space-time is not a simple concept.

    Thus we have personal space-time created out of the waveform of our awareness. This constitutes our consciousness. Our internal feelings and the internal sense of time is part of this space-time.

    Then this consciousness (self-awareness) along with other consciousnesses exist within a larger space-time. It is like bounded space of a bubble floating in an unbounded space. Are the two spaces the same?

    It is not a huge bubble breaking into smaller bubbles. It is like many bubbles simply appearing out of nowhere. When the first bubble appears, the only space is what is inside it.there is no idea of any other space.

    But when the second bubble appears, then there is an idea of space between the two bubbles. This space is different in the sense that it has the idea of differentiation, separation and boundary associated with it, which is not there in the first space.

    This makes me wonder if the space inside an atom is different from the space in which two atoms exist. When a molecule is formed out of several atoms, does the space between the atoms converts to a space inside the molecule?

    There seems to be an interface between the two kind of spaces. Is that the interface between subjective and objective?

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On July 19, 2014 at 8:41 AM

      “Space-time is not a simple concept.”

      Yes! We are definitely together on that.Haha

    • Chris Thompson  On July 19, 2014 at 8:46 AM

      “Thus we have personal space-time created out of the waveform of our awareness. This constitutes our consciousness. Our internal feelings and the internal sense of time is part of this space-time” This is a good description.

    • Chris Thompson  On July 19, 2014 at 8:54 AM

      “Then this consciousness (self-awareness) along with other consciousnesses exist within a larger space-time. It is like bounded space of a bubble floating in an unbounded space. Are the two spaces the same?” What do we know and what can we say about them mixing or staying separate that is consistent? The illusion of control asserts mixing and dominance of one bubble over another but this seems to be a delusion or other similar descriptive word for imaginary truth which is only true within the bubble of the person asserting it.

    • Chris Thompson  On July 19, 2014 at 9:00 AM

      This makes me wonder if the space inside an atom is different from the space in which two atoms exist. When a molecule is formed out of several atoms, the space between the atoms converts to a space inside the molecule.” I like this vector of thinking very much. It is along the subject of understanding space and this seems complicated beyond measure.

    • Chris Thompson  On July 19, 2014 at 9:02 AM

      “Is that the interface between subjective and objective?” This is a good question.

    • Chris Thompson  On July 19, 2014 at 9:07 AM

      “It is not a huge bubble breaking into smaller bubbles. ” This is not simple. How does DNA, sex, etc., fit in this bubble idea. I see a stream of conscious within species, not within some spiritual realm, but rather within our genetic code as an example.

      • vinaire  On July 19, 2014 at 1:18 PM

        I shall leave this for later exploration as it is a huge subject.

  • vinaire  On July 19, 2014 at 6:46 AM

    A beingness is becoming aware of another beingness as an extension of its awareness. There may not be any real space between two beingnesses, as it is the case between two bubbles. The “space between two bubbles” may be an illusion. The true space-time is the awareness.

    One is looking through awareness and not through anything else. If there is any filter it is this awareness. The nature of this awareness is like a vibration or wave. It can create all sorts of filters.

    Space is awareness. It can be simple and straight forward. Or it can be twisted and complicated.

    Thus, there can be an objectivity-subjectivity scale and not a clear-cut boundary between the two. Things are objective to the degree awareness is simple and straightforward. Things are subjective to the degree awareness is twisted and complicated.

    • Chris Thompson  On July 19, 2014 at 9:11 AM

      “A beingness is becoming aware of another beingness as an extension of its awareness. ” Yes that makes sense. I do see a lot of mirroring going on in all aspects of awareness. This seems true in sex as well, or maybe rather as a prime example.

      • vinaire  On July 19, 2014 at 1:15 PM

        I see it in all dealings. Only the degree of awareness may vary.

  • vinaire  On July 19, 2014 at 6:58 AM

    I always wondered about the boundary between objectivity and subjectivity. I wrote about it here.

    https://vinaire.me/2013/05/16/reality-mindfulness/

    There is no real boundary between subjectivity and objectivity. It is just how direct and straight the awareness is which makes the degree of objectivity. This is mindfulness. This is also the clarity of space.

    The “thing-in-itself” is each consciousness.

    Wow!

    • Chris Thompson  On July 19, 2014 at 2:56 PM

      This is also the clarity of space. Not sure how you mean this.

      • vinaire  On July 19, 2014 at 4:47 PM

        As Einstein showed that space could be curved due to gravity. I suspect that there are other factors that can distort space, especially the light from deep space. More distortions could be there if the whole electromagnetc spectrum is taken into accout. This is conjectural.

  • vinaire  On July 19, 2014 at 7:08 AM

    There is a space of forms. Then there is also the space of awareness.

  • vinaire  On July 22, 2014 at 6:24 PM

    https://vinaire.me/2014/07/16/the-nature-of-forms/#comment-26076

    “…the culmination of neti-neti is that there is no culmination save for death.”

    I don’t think that exception goes with “neti, neti.”

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On July 22, 2014 at 11:39 PM

      Why not?

      • vinaire  On July 23, 2014 at 6:06 AM

        You say “immanence” and not “transcendence” and I say, “neti, neti.”

        Ground state is not transcendent because one cannot be aware beyond awareness. Ground state is not immanent because there is no awareness. Ground state is simply the absence of awareness.

        Death is not absence of awareness because death is disintegration of awareness. Death is not complete annihilation of awareness.

  • vinaire  On July 22, 2014 at 6:28 PM

    https://vinaire.me/2014/07/16/the-nature-of-forms/#comment-26091

    “Death is not nirvana.” How do you know this?

    If death were nirvana we wouldn’t need Buddhism. Just go and kill yourself and there won’t be any more suffering.

    But I don’t think it works that way.

    • Chris Thompson  On July 22, 2014 at 11:44 PM

      “But I don’t think it works that way.”

      Well, 1,000,000 million suicides around the world per year disagree. Maybe Scientologists should consider this affluent statistic? It could be OT9, setups for OT10, prepaid of course.

      • vinaire  On July 23, 2014 at 6:11 AM

        David Miscavige will love to hear from you.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 23, 2014 at 4:07 PM

          You like that too? It is a perfectly good handling for “end of cycle.” By the time adherents make this last donation, they are drained of every resource and of no more value to COS. Neat. Here we are at the Shrine Auditorium… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSUAAKFLoL0

        • vinaire  On July 23, 2014 at 4:29 PM

          LOL! I remember that scene so very well.

          This movie AGORA is reminding of the script the Scientologist might play in the future.

        • vinaire  On July 24, 2014 at 5:25 AM

          Well. I watched the movie Logan’s Run once again last night.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 25, 2014 at 10:25 PM

          Cool!

  • vinaire  On July 22, 2014 at 6:34 PM

    https://vinaire.me/2014/07/16/the-nature-of-forms/#comment-26077

    im·ma·nent [im-uh-nuhnt] Show IPA
    adjective
    1. remaining within; indwelling; inherent.
    2. Philosophy . (of a mental act) taking place within the mind of the subject and having no effect outside of it. Compare transeunt.
    3. Theology . (of the Deity) indwelling the universe, time, etc. Compare transcendent ( def 3 ) .

    Origin:
    1525–35; < Late Latin immanent- (stem of immanēns ), present participle of immanēre to stay in, equivalent to im- im-1 + man ( ēre ) to stay + -ent- -ent; see remain

    Immanence is a condition that applies to beingness. So, immanance cannot be there if there is no beingness. So, immanence is not the Ground State. Ground State is without beingness.

    • Chris Thompson  On July 22, 2014 at 11:54 PM

      “So, immanence is not the Ground State. Ground State is without beingness.”

      So you’ve said. Let me ask you this, if all we are ever going to be and all we are ever going to know resides within the world, doesn’t it make sense to subscribe to an immanent spirituality which can possibly exist?

      The notion of transcendence seems like pipe smoke to me, if even that. This is what the theists sell. Regarding the ground state, everything that we know can be traced to a previous disturbance from the disturbance that we notice. Is there something about this which seems inconsistent to you? That disturbances disturb space which in turn disturb more space?

      The assertion of ground state relies upon the assumption of something arising from nothing. Why do we need to reach for this?

      • vinaire  On July 23, 2014 at 6:20 AM

        “Let me ask you this, if all we are ever going to be and all we are ever going to know resides within the world, doesn’t it make sense to subscribe to an immanent spirituality which can possibly exist?”

        And what does this world reside in? How far do you take this down the rabbit hole? As long as you are assuming that there is a bottom of the rabbit hole you have beingness.

        Ground state is absence of beingness… “neti, neti” my friend!

        • Chris Thompson  On July 23, 2014 at 4:20 PM

          “And what does this world reside in?”

          This world resides in a Great Ocean of Tautology.

          I think neti neti was dreamed up my a beleaguered mother who tired of her child’s endless questioning and so to the question “what is nothing” she cruelly made her child guess and to each guess, she replied “neti” until the child wearied of the game and moved onto something not bothering the mother.

        • vinaire  On July 23, 2014 at 4:39 PM

          Tautology is how disturbance occurs. It is spherical.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 23, 2014 at 5:20 PM

          But not precisely, correct? Not in the sense that it returns precisely to the same point. But recursive and self similar?

        • vinaire  On July 24, 2014 at 5:37 AM

          At the moment I have an approximation. It shall be corrected as we proceed.

  • vinaire  On July 22, 2014 at 6:39 PM

    https://vinaire.me/2014/07/16/the-nature-of-forms/#comment-26079
    “Buddha is too Western, too new Age. This statement of his is not absolutely true and to that degree inconsistent. “

    Meaning gets lost in translation. A better explanation is here:

    https://vinaire.me/2014/06/04/the-absolute-truth/
    .

    • Chris Thompson  On July 23, 2014 at 12:02 AM

      I like Kali, she’s my kind of girrrrl.

      • vinaire  On July 23, 2014 at 6:29 AM

        That’s the eternal dancer, the eternal flux… static and dynamic mixed.

        There is no absolute static in awareness. We can only postulate “absence of awareness” as an absolute reference point. But it does not exist in awareness.

        Scientology Static is not “absence of awareness.” When there is absence of awareness static and dynamic lose there meaning.

  • vinaire  On July 22, 2014 at 6:44 PM

    https://vinaire.me/2014/07/16/the-nature-of-forms/#comment-26081

    Let me clarify, “The deepest any beingness can go is unawareness.”

    Beingness includes light, atoms, minerals, plants, animals, humans… you name it.

    Please see: https://vinaire.me/2014/07/18/beingness-viewpoint-and-reality/

    .

  • vinaire  On July 22, 2014 at 6:49 PM

    https://vinaire.me/2014/07/16/the-nature-of-forms/#comment-26083

    So, there can be a sphere made up of awareness. All gradients of awareness will lie within that sphere. Surrounding that sphere may be the ground state.

    • Chris Thompson  On July 23, 2014 at 12:14 AM

      “Surrounding that sphere may be the ground state.”

      I understand, really.

  • vinaire  On July 22, 2014 at 6:56 PM

    https://vinaire.me/2014/07/16/the-nature-of-forms/#comment-26084

    “The problem is that ground-state can be used as something outside where it cannot be known.”

    “Outside and inside” are equally considerations, and part of awareness. Ground state is “absence of awareness.” Immanence and transcendence don’t matter. Those are Western additives. 😛
    .

  • vinaire  On July 22, 2014 at 7:00 PM

    https://vinaire.me/2014/07/16/the-nature-of-forms/#comment-26085

    “All mathematical interpretation shall be in the domain of awareness. Below that is the ground state.”
    So, no?

    I don’t think you can make any projections from awareness to determine the nature of ground state. The ground state is unknowable.
    .

    • Chris Thompson  On July 23, 2014 at 12:16 AM

      “I don’t think you make any projections from awareness to determine the nature of ground state. The ground state is unknowable.”

      No, it’s not.

      • vinaire  On July 23, 2014 at 6:55 AM

        Then what you are thinking of as ground state is not the ground state, because it has awareness.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 23, 2014 at 4:36 PM

          “Then what you are thinking of as ground state is not the ground state, because it has awareness.”

          It is what you are thinking as ground state which has awareness, each time you say it. There is an interesting circle going round here.

        • vinaire  On July 23, 2014 at 4:37 PM

          OK Judas, keep on trying. 🙂

        • vinaire  On July 24, 2014 at 5:31 AM

          At the moment, I see the ground state as unknowable, and I am approximating it as “absence of awareness.” This makes me see awareness as a disturbance.

          If this approximation of Ground State can be improved in the future I shall do it.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 25, 2014 at 10:28 PM

          “If this approximation of Ground State can be improved in the future I shall do it.”

          Super! And I shall keep in mind that the term is a placeholder for what is so smoothly consistent that it currently is not easy to perceive without special x-ray fractal glasses!

      • vinaire  On July 23, 2014 at 6:56 AM

        “Neti, neti.” 🙂

  • vinaire  On July 22, 2014 at 7:10 PM

    https://vinaire.me/2014/07/16/the-nature-of-forms/#comment-26086

    “Is there a reason, a value that this ground-state fills?”

    Yes, it stops the search for the bottom of the rabbit hole. Now one can focus on Disturbance levels.

    It helps define awareness as a disturbance.

    It puts Abrahmic religions in proper perspective to Vedic religions.

    It shows that the God of Abrahamic religions and Static cannot be absolutes.

    It shows that there is no awareness or consideration that can be absolute.

    In short: https://vinaire.me/2014/07/13/the-ground-state-of-the-universe/

  • vinaire  On July 22, 2014 at 7:14 PM

    https://vinaire.me/2014/07/16/the-nature-of-forms/#comment-26087

    “Defining space as some kind of empty void between objects is an abstraction and I think, short-sighted. “

    You are talling about form and its extents. You are not talking about space.

    • Chris Thompson  On July 23, 2014 at 12:23 AM

      Yes, I am. What do you suppose fills the area between objects? That area is there and it is full of space and that space is full of energy packets and time. Between here and the Moon is something or nothing? It certainly is not a ground state. So?

      • vinaire  On July 23, 2014 at 7:18 AM

        This universe is forms within forms within form. What you are calling space is part of the initial form really.

  • vinaire  On July 23, 2014 at 7:26 AM

    https://vinaire.me/2014/07/16/the-nature-of-forms/#comment-26132

    ”So, no?”

    Static refers to absolute individuality. There can be no individuality without individuals. So, Static is associated with beingness. It is not the ground state.

    “Neti, neti.” 🙂

  • vinaire  On July 26, 2014 at 8:52 AM

    http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/scientology-a-monotheistic-religion/#comment-310610

    I think that it is about time to conclude this discussion on Axiom #1 and the Ground State. The discussion with Valkov and Chris Thompson has been quite enlightening. Here is my conclusion.

    Hubbard defined thetan as awareness of awareness unit. He was correct in narrowing everything down to awareness. All life starts with awareness. But beyond that he fictionalized a thetan.

    The correct scientific reasoning would have been as follows:

    (1) It is recognized that life starts with awareness.

    (2) Therefore, the dichotomy here would be “no awareness – awareness.”

    (3) Beyond awareness would be no awareness and any area beyond awareness would be unknowable.

    (4) We cannot tell if there is no life beyond awareness because that area is unknowable.

    (5) But we can use “absence of awareness” as a reference point of all awareness just like we use “zero” as a reference point for all numbers.

    (6) From this reference point the “Static” of Scientology, which refers to a specific type of individuality, would be a point of awareness.

    (7) Thus, “Static” of Scientiology is a variable in itself. It is not the reference point of all life as assumed by Hubbard.

    Q.E.D.
    .

    • Chris Thompson  On July 26, 2014 at 11:09 AM

      “Buddha did go all the way down the road. He discovered that self was an illusion too, and that the ultimate reality was beyond the illusion of self.” We can know what was written that Buddha said but we cannot know how far down that road metaphor that he went. If the difference between an illusion and an abstraction is relevant, what do you suppose that relevance is?

      • vinaire  On July 26, 2014 at 4:02 PM

        Chris, you are getting too complicated for me.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 26, 2014 at 7:23 PM

          Please! Just slow down on the assumptions.

        • vinaire  On July 27, 2014 at 12:50 AM

          Mindfulness doesn’t mean that you cannot hypothesize and improve that hypothesis as more data becomes available.

          Are there specific inconsistencies that are bothering you?

        • Chris Thompson  On July 27, 2014 at 3:09 AM

          Already covered them.

        • vinaire  On July 27, 2014 at 6:11 AM

          Can you take them up again one at a time?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: