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

.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

Comments

  • 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/

    • Chris Thompson  On July 23, 2014 at 12:17 AM

      Ok, but that seems like a long way around.

      • vinaire  On July 23, 2014 at 7:13 AM

        You don’t need to focus on the ground state any more.

  • 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?

%d bloggers like this: