Conventions and Terminology

Discussion concerning other (non-RS) systems of theory and the insights obtained from them, as applied to the developing RS2 theory.
Post Reply
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Conventions and Terminology

Post by bperet »

Terminology is a problem when discussing systems of philosophy, so this topic is to define and clarify terms that are being used in the discussions. First up, since the Reciprocal System plays a part of this new, 4th density paradigm, there are a couple of terms that need clarification between the RS use and the use in other systems, particularly the Ra Material.

For some strange reason, Dewey Larson, when defining the terms in the Reciprocal System, defined the terms space-time and time-space backward from conventional understanding. I believe it was because he viewed motion from a temporal point of view, rather than a spatial one. We will start here:

The universe of matter; the physical realm

RS: time-space, the "material sector"

Ra: space/time

other: physical plane

The universe of anti-matter; the energy realm

RS: space-time, the "cosmic sector"

Ra: time/space

other: astral plane

The two systems are distinguished by the use of the hyphen or slash; Reciprocal System references use the hyphen for defining the relation between space and time; Ra and other material use the slash. So, when reading the Reciprocal System entries, understand that Larson's use of the terms "space" and "time" are reversed from conventional understanding.

Ontological Planes of Existence

RS: Levels of existence
  1. Inanimate
  2. Biological
  3. Ethical (includes everything not defined in the inanimate and biological levels)
Ra: Densities

Numbered 1 thru 7, forming an octave of existence. References to an "8th density" refer to an overlap of the 1st density of the next octave into the prior octave.
  1. Inanimate
  2. Biological (plants and lower animals)
  3. Biological (upper animals, humans); also "the Density of Choice"
  4. Light/Love
  5. Honor
  6. Wisdom
  7. Unity
Theosophy: Planes
  1. Physical
  2. Astral
  3. Mental (lower and upper)
  4. Buddhic
  5. Atmic/Nirvanic (lower and upper)
  6. Monadic/Anupadaka
  7. Divine/Adi
The Missing Link: The "etheric" plane

The "etheric plane" is notably missing from the above structures, because it appears to be a "bridge" between the astral and physical planes. It behaves more like a projection from the astral/cosmic into the physical, and manifests as an "etheric body" surrounding a physical body.
Every dogma has its day...
danmc
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 11:31 am

Re: Conventions and Terminology

Post by danmc »

bperet wrote:
The universe of anti-matter; the metaphysical realm

RS: space-time, the "cosmic sector"

Ra: time/space

other: etheric or astral plane
This is confusing here.

1. Putting the cosmic sector in the "metaphysical realm". It's decidedly physical (though non "material), is it not?

2. By (1), lumping the astral in with the cosmic sector/etheric region. Every system I've encountered puts the Astral in the non-physical and therefore, metaphysical realm.
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Conventions and Terminology

Post by bperet »

danmc wrote:
1. Putting the cosmic sector in the "metaphysical realm". It's decidedly physical (though non "material), is it not?
Yes, Larson considered it to be "physical". I'll correct the initial post. I think we've discovered another problem with the RS -- Larson's use of terms is confusing and does not agree with other systems. Therefore it breeds misunderstanding because the wrong set of premises is coupled with the concept.

danmc wrote:
2. By (1), lumping the astral in with the cosmic sector/etheric region. Every system I've encountered puts the Astral in the non-physical and therefore, metaphysical realm.
I used to think that, until I started comparing attributes rather than structure.

Most systems list the order as physical-etheric-astral which forms a loose correspondence with Larsons material-cosmic-ethic sequence. But when you compare the attributes of Larson's cosmic sector to the etheric realm, it doesn't match. You actually pointed this out in Point #1 above... the cosmic is physical, not etheric. Astral also has the characteristics of "physical" but in inverse relation to the material -- it is the mould, not the form.

The 'etheric' seems to be the projection of the astral into the physical, forming "etheric bodies" surrounding physical bodies. Basically, an "energy body" around a "material body", which correlates quite well with how the cosmic sector interacts with the physical sector -- as patterns of energy.

The best match I have been able to make so far, in generic terms, is:

RS "material sector" (time-space events; form) == physical plane

RS "material sector" (space-time events; energy) == etheric plane

RS "cosmic sector" == astral plane (viewed from outside the material sector)

RS "ethical sector" == mental plane

Granted, it makes the astral plane "physical" by Larson's definition, but it might actually be, given the descriptions of "astral body", "astral worlds", "astral stars"... the astral plane seems to have all the same components as the physical plane, but on a different "vibration". Whereas when you look at the descriptions of the etheric, they are often attached to some existing physical system (or astral system), and appear to act as a bridge between the two. This is why I interpret it as a projective transformation, rather than a "plane" or "sector" unto itself.

Also consider the attributes of the "ethical sector" -- the realm of ideas, ethics, behavior, religion, belief, philosophy -- all "mental" concepts without physical components. And the mental plane -- the realm of thought and ideas. Seems to be a high correspondence there.

This is my rationalle; I would welcome any insight into other systems you have encountered so we can build a good cross-comparison table.

Bruce
Every dogma has its day...
danmc
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 11:31 am

Re: Conventions and Terminology

Post by danmc »

When I got to Larson, I was immediately struck how similar his system was to those of say, Steiner, Theosophy, and Christian Mysticism. Like these systems, Larson found that the physical world is composed of two general regions that he termed the material sector and the Cosmic sector. Usually these are refereed to in the above mentioned systems as the chemical(material) and the etheric regions. They are in further agreement with Larson in that, as Larson posits that the cosmic sector life unit animates the material form, so does the unit of the etheric region, often calling it the "vital body".

So much for the similarities. Where they diverge is over the issue of the astral. Larson lumps everything beyond the physical into the ethical sector. This is, of course, completely understandable, as the RS is a physical theory, and the nature of the breadth and depth of the ethical sector can only be got through extrapolation. It does not seem at all unreasonable to assume the ethical sector to be comprised of different levels, since that is the finding in the known region.

In all three of the above mentioned systems, the Astral is "a level up", so to speak, and entirely non-physical. These systems stress that desire, attraction/repulsion, emotion, etc, is the role of the astral. They also claim that plants lack an independent astral body, whereas animals and man posses one, and posit this as a major difference in terms of systematics. It is this factor that gives animals and man the ability to move independently of their environment. Plants, lacking this in their constitution, are incapable of such motion. Vines creep, leaves turn, and flowers open and close, but the plant remains firmly rooted at its place of origin.

They also say that the astral acts as a brake upon the vital body, the sector two unit in Larson's terms. Impulses, desires, and feelings (often in opposition to the well being of the organism) tend to break down the vital body. Many plants, since in general they lack this brake upon their growth, grow to enormous sizes, or at least continue to grow throughout their lives. The reversal of this tearing down of the vital body by the astral body is, they say, one of the primary reasons for sleep. They claim that in man and higher animals, the consciousness leaves with the astral body during sleep, allowing the vital body to reinvigorate the form unhindered. Astral travel or projection during sleep seems to verify this.

Here's my view:

RS "material sector" (time-space events; form) == material component of physical plane

RS "cosmic sector"; Steiner, et al "Etheric Region" (space-time events; energy) == etheric plane;animating component of physical plane

Now we run into the lumping together problem of Larson. With this in mind, then comes:

Astral Plane

Mental Plane

One interesting note is that these system break down the mental, as they do the physical, into two regions. A lower mental associated with concrete ideation, and a higher mental associated with abstract ideation. As a simplistic example, the idea of "boat", and the concrete idea of a particular boat, say, "a schooner".

bperet wrote:
The Missing Link: The "etheric" plane

The "etheric plane" is notably missing from the above structures, because it appears to be a "bridge" between the astral and physical planes. It behaves more like a projection from the astral/cosmic into the physical, and manifests as an "etheric body" surrounding a physical body.
Theosophy actually has two different "eras". During the HPB era, it's true that there is no reference to the etheric plane. In the second era, call it the Besant/Leadbeater era, the etheric region becomes a prominent component of their philosophy. At least that's my understanding.

Dan
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Projective Philosophy

Post by bperet »

danmc wrote:
In all three of the above mentioned systems, the Astral is "a level up", so to speak, and entirely non-physical.
This got me thinking that my definition of "physical" appears to be much broader than yours... despite the same label. This kicked in a bit of pattern recognition--our discussion has analogous characteristics to the application of Projective Geometry to the Reciprocal System.

It occurs to me that we are looking at a "Euclidean" philosophy... just like our view of atoms and regions are clouded by the assumptions we make by our geometric perspective, the same thing is happening with a spiritual perspective. I wonder if we can find the "Projective Philosophy", where there is only a single invariant that starts it all.

To draw an analogy from Projective Geometry, the "physical plane" is Euclidean; the "Etheric" is Metric, and the "Astral" is Affine... each level you go up loses an invariant characteristic.

We see the change from "Euclidean physical" to "Metric etheric" to be the difference between inanimate and biological realms, but there is another way to look at it -- the REMOVAL of a barrier (invariant) that allows material and cosmic atoms to interact, producing the life unit. The same can be said between the life unit and the "Affine Astral" control unit -- the removal of the barrier that allows "motion" to occur between the two, resulting in ethical manifestation.

If we examine the "spirit" as if it were a type of geometry, can we define the stratification of spirit? It appears all these systems are attempting to do just that, but within a specific context only. I suppose the best way to approach it is to "decompose" the various planes, levels, or densities into the defining characteristics, and how one is transformed into the next. This should identify the assumptions and invariants.

There is also a secondary problem that I can only describe as the difference between "direction" -- integration or differentiation -- there will be different attributes to a path that is differentiating from an archetypal level, and one that has "bottomed out" and is in the process of integration (heading up towards the archetypal, but on its own path).

I'll have to give it some more thought.
Every dogma has its day...
Post Reply