Newbie Comments – Text Book? & Motion Source?

This forum is dedicated to the student just starting out with the concepts of the Reciprocal System, or RS2. Questions and clarifications for the RS/RS2 concepts go here; please place new ideas and commentary in the appropriate RS2 fora.
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:35 am

Newbie Comments – Text Book? & Motion Source?

Post by Jameela » Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:36 pm

Six months ago I came across the Reciprocal System for the first time, since then I have put many hours into studying it and now regard it highly. I would like to share my two primary concerns; said as constructive comments.

1. There is no clear book on the subject suitable for new enquirers! With my engineering rather than science background, the writings of Dewey B Larson are so difficult; they seem to be aimed at converting other professional scientists to his way of thinking. So does a new enquirer have to learn conventional science first, and then re-learn to convert to the Reciprocal System ideas? …We need a college style Text Book that introduces basic science concepts put into the Reciprocal System context; focusing upon the current stable understanding of RS2, and where the conclusions of Larson himself were different, just said out of historical interest. (e.g. birotation now understood to generate the simple harmonic motion of a photon, but Larson thought ‘reversals’ were primary)

2. There is scant regard to the Source of the Motion, as to how it got moving in the first place! If we content ourselves to a ‘universal theory’, in the sense that it all started from chemistry, then atomic scale to galactic scale got included, and both gravity and radiation as well… This though, is not the whole; as neither the ‘Source’ is described, nor is mental activity included. I feel that RS2 is at its weakest with regards to metaphysics, perhaps understandably as mathematics and experiment are more tangible than the mystical stuff. …However, we all have both left hemisphere and right hemisphere to our brains, and the holistic right is also vital, or put another way; use your Yin energy! (as well as your Yang) It is not just ‘scalar motion’ that can be said to have Yin and Yang, we too as humans have an approach to life, and the opposite to our default mode is often the key to insights!

Consider ‘Scalar Motion vis-à-vis Abstract Motion of Mind’ – how can we possibly fathom such as this without being holistic, and personally linking metaphysically with something greater than ourselves?


User avatar
Posts: 1480
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am

Newbie replies

Post by bperet » Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:52 pm

HI Jameela,

#1, you are correct, there is no introductory material on the Reciprocal System, except the slide presentations that Gopi did on the main rstheory site. And Larson was definitely trying to address the scientific community, whom he mistakenly believed actually had an open mind and were looking for a "theory of everything." You should see the pile of rejection letters at ISUS HQ that Larson got. I would have probably given up at that point... but not Larson. He just continued on and kept researching and writing.

As you know, RS2 has Nehru's Theosophical influence in it, which is where concepts like birotation come from (the yin aspect of things.) Though I never knew Larson personally (he died a few months before I ran across ISUS), his writings indicated he was not able to get the gist of what Nehru was proposing on many times, because of his "yang only," Euclidean geometry approach. It took many iterations and a lot of trial and error, but the approach we have now using complex quantities for the coordinate reference systems seems to work a lot better, particularly in the electrical engineering aspect that was forced to use imaginary quantities to express AC operations in inductive and capactive circuits.

I've rewritten the introductory material on this site a dozen times, trying to find a way to get people started on Larson's theories, but it never works for everyone. Just too many different backgrounds, and education isn't what it used to be.

The problem arises is that we are just not used to thinking in terms of motion... we like "things," which is why so many of Larson's students immediately hop on the "unit of motion" concept, thinking it is a "chunk of 45 mph," which obviously, it isn't. The only thing close to representing the "motion" idea was with Nehru's "gear trains," of interlocked gears to describe photon and atomic behavior.

I am open to suggestions, if you have any.
#2, There is scant regard to the Source of the Motion, as to how it got moving in the first place!
Larson was asked that question a number of times, and would say something along the lines of "the universe IS motion, so it doesn't need a push" (he liked "push" for some reason--used that word a lot of times.) That is actually one of the biggest hurdles to get over--thinking in terms of motion, rather than something moving.

Larson would not discuss religious or metaphysical interpretions. He did a lot of research on it, but refused to allow the publishing of Beyond Space and Time until his death. He considered the conclusions too radical to be coupled with physics and astronomy.

In the natural reference of Reciprocal System, the starting point is unit speed, or "singular change." There is no concept of nothing, nor everything--no zero or infinity, only unity.

I think as we delve more into the relationship between the material and cosmic sectors, that holism you speak of will become apparent. Conventional science only looks at the material, spatial side and "poo-poo" the 19th century ether researchers as being ignorant, yet when we started taking a detailed look at the cosmic sector (something Larson tried to avoid!), all the "yin" stuff is there and it has all the character OF those ether theories. A holistic approach needs to be a "whole-istic" approach, taking both the yang space and the yin time as aspects of natural change/motion.
Every dogma has its day...

Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:35 am

Newbie Comments Continued...

Post by Jameela » Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:55 am

This stuff is getting accurate, but I feel we must tackle the weaker areas before we will be able to progress further generally! ...Specifically the two points I raised:
  1. A good text book is needed - so that researchers in other disciplines may find it easier to access RS and then make their own contributions, also that college students can have a way in - to bring their vitality and fresh thinking to the movement.
  2. Facing the issue of "The Source" - To me it is simply being fobbed off to just ignore how the motion got to be in the first place! Surely this must be a key factor! I make the comment that this "Source" cannot be physical, but rather of a "Mind" nature. The esoteric writings describe 'Abstract Motion' (e.g.. 'The Cosmic Doctrine' by Dion Fortune and similar described by Artist and Mystic Walter Russell) This "Abstract Motion" they describe, originated from The Source, The God, The Great Spirit, Universal Consciousness - choose your own preferred words, but there is "something" of a Mind nature that originates abstract motion. It seems only a sequence of events in a metaphysical sense to develop from a pure Abstract Motion to a physical Scalar Motion. Like going down the "planes" in Theosophy. The only way I can think of to describe Mind based Abstract Motion, is Theatre!
As RS states: Space/Time is not the framework of the Universe, but rather it is the other way around - Physical Space/Time is created within the Universe! ...So what is the Universe??? Surely this must be able to affect what is within it! For example, all the unexplained paranormal phenomena?

On a final note (literally) it is a well recognized fact that in music; a major chord and a minor chord affect our emotions differently, the minor chord having a sadness to it. This can activate our physical responses accordingly, yet all is done by simply varying the mix of harmonic frequencies of sound waves. Think Theatre!! ...There is much yet to be uncovered by fitting into RS - we need the input of many different minds.

With Peace, Jameela

User avatar
Posts: 1480
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am

A good text book is needed -

Post by bperet » Wed Nov 28, 2012 2:20 pm

A good text book is needed - so that researchers in other disciplines may find it easier to access RS and then make their own contributions, also that college students can have a way in - to bring their vitality and fresh thinking to the movement.
I've tried a number of times, but I am just not a writer! However, if you want to outline a book, I'll be happy to fill in the details.
Facing the issue of "The Source" - To me it is simply being fobbed off to just ignore how the motion got to be in the first place! Surely this must be a key factor! I make the comment that this "Source" cannot be physical, but rather of a "Mind" nature.
Keep in mind that Larson's original book was The Structure of the PHYSICAL Universe. Things like "mind," "esoterics," and "consciousness" do not fall within the pervue of chemistry and physics. Larson only dealt with the physical plane, so there is nothing to filter down from higher sources.

I realize you are coming from Russell's perspective of "nothing," but Larson's version of "nothing" is the concept of "Unit motion." I prefer to think of it as a ratio rather than a speed, because a ratio is more abstract and you don't have the connotation of something moving. So in a symbolic sense, Larson's RS starts with unity, as "nothing," and it is the decomposition of that original unity that creates the structure of the physical universe. He does not identify why things like "direction reversals" happen, and the times he was asked, refused to comment--leaving that for future investigators to figure out. Larson's first Source and Center is therefore the Unity of all creation.
For example, all the unexplained paranormal phenomena?
Larson admits that there are unexplained phenomena, but he did not consider anything para-normal. The coordinate time aspects of the cosmic sector are responsible for most of the "unexplained" phenomena, because everyone considers time to be the 1-dimensional "arrow of time"--the clock, not an entire, 3D universe. (I had daniel post his papers here, for reference, because they deal a lot with coordinate time and the metaphysical realms. They are in the Reciprocal Philosophy section for now.)
Think Theatre!! ...There is much yet to be uncovered by fitting into RS - we need the input of many different minds.
I agree. You might want to look at the references to Keely on the site, as he has been the only "delve" I've made into the musical components. Also, the acoustic stuff that Gopi posted a while back.
Every dogma has its day...

Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 4:36 am

A goood textbook is needed

Post by BecomingPhill » Wed Nov 28, 2012 4:50 pm

Am practically in the same boat as Jameela in terms of wrapping my head around the postulates, although I have an IT and Audio/Video Production background and I came across Dewey's materials by following the suppositions made by (yes you may cringe) The Ra Material, it doesn't take a rocket scientist (pun intended?) to recognize that this is a most important work of physical science which deserves to receive widespread access.

In that light, would something like crowdsourcing funding or participants to work on a 'good textbook' be something that rs2 would be interested in pursuing? There are various projects worldwide which have gotten off the ground using crowdsourcing.

If yes, I would be willing to set aside some time to get a project bid going for this.

Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:59 pm

Motion, Time and Logos

Post by Ardavarz » Wed Dec 05, 2012 7:59 pm

I am new to this system and still studying the materials on this site, but from what I have understood so far, I think that the motion has no beginning or end - it doesn't need "source" to come from. The conventional notions about "movement" are strongly influenced by our linguistic habits of describing reality in terms of nouns and verbs ("things" and "actions"), so it seems that every motion requires a mover (just as a sentence requires subject and object), but if I understand it right Larson's idea about "universe of motion" was intended exactly to correct this preconception.

I personally prefer to think of it as Time (with capital letter) - which for me suggests more immediately the idea of "motion without something moving" - that manifests itself as "distance" and "duration" of which the conventional notions of "space" and "time" (with small letter) are derived, but only as useful mental constructs hypostasizing distance and duration respectively without real existence of their own. (I mean here "space" and "time" as static frames of reference - the empty "stage" on which events as if happen, while distance and duration as dynamic manifestations of the flow of Time).

"Ratio" is also good term - it evokes the ancient Greek notion about the "logos". In ancient Greek "logos" meant "word", "reason" and "ratio". Considering that any ratio is equivalent to a fraction which in turn is expressed as series of symbols (digits - "letters" as much as the base of the number system employed), it indeed can be seen as "word", that is as some unit of information. (It's curious how the ancient Greeks have had this notion without having positional numerical system to express the fractions). If so then the "scalar motion" can be interpreted also as a stream of data and from this point of view the "flow of Time" as processing information and that's how the meaning of "reason" (i.e. the "abstract motion of mind") also applies to the "logos".

"Mind" and "matter" aren't substances, but rather processes. They don't have independent existence. But this doesn't mean that they are one - they are neither the same, nor different, just mutually defined concepts (like "time" and "space") correlating with (or based upon) duration and distance (extension) respectively. Thus from one perspective the whole universe can be seen as purely mental process of thinking and processing information, while from the other - as physical interactions between different flows of Time. As in the old joke: "What is mind? - No matter. What is matter? - Never mind".

User avatar
Posts: 1480
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am

One is the new Zero

Post by bperet » Thu Dec 06, 2012 4:43 pm

I did not know that the Greek logos meant ratio. Very interesting, indeed.

Something else to consider is the choice of datum as an origin. Larson has two, the unit speed datum of the natural reference system, and the zero distance/duration datum for coordinate space and coordinate time. All of these are the condition of "nothing." There is also a third that Gopi introduced into RS2, the infinity datum, which is "nothing," inside-out.

nothing -> something <- everything

Where everything is unity in the natural reference system, nothing exists. In order to have something, you cannot have nothing, therefore you must have some displacement from unity, or a non-unit speed, which is how Larson builds his atoms. And once you have something, then that something can be located (Larson's absolute location), which forms the zero datum, the origin of measurement. The starting point where you stick the end of the yardstick, to measure, distance, duration or magnitude in a coordinate reference system.
"What is mind? - No matter. What is matter? - Never mind".
LOL... going to have to remember that one. I always got a chuckle out of Doctor Who's time traveling comment, "Have I been here before? Or am I yet to arrive?"
Every dogma has its day...

Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:35 am

'Source' and 'Logos'

Post by Jameela » Sat Dec 08, 2012 3:13 am

As a design engineer, I know that things just don't get designed by themselves! ...With the right conducive environment; the conditions for creative work can be ready, but still nothing happens without some mental seed to start it, then sustained mental drive is needed to grow it to maturity. - So likewise, on a Grand Scale, surely the Universe design must also have some mental "seed" to start it, then some mental drive to grow it and sustain it?

Without a "Source", how else can you explain this?

I too immediately picked up on the Greek word 'Logos' having a meaning 'Ratio'. My thoughts immediately go to the use of 'Logos' in Dion Fortune's book "The Cosmic Doctrine", and how this monumental work may fit with RS2.

For those who have not read it: 'The Cosmic Doctrine' was written as a series of overshadowed channeling sessions (Not deep trance) starting on the spring equinox 1923 at the base of Glastonbury Tor, England. At each channeling session, Dion Fortune dictated the words of a whole chapter which were transcribed by a colleague exactly as they are printed today. Only the punctuation was added. No changes or editing amendment of the text was necessary. I hold this book in great esteem, it is far more specific than the earlier 'Secret Doctrine' by Madame Blavatsky. - Dion Fortune's communicating Spirit was just known as "The Old Greek" who apparently suffered execution for being a little too clever! He has been associated with Socrates, but that can never be proven. - The main theme of 'The Cosmic Doctrine' is it all starts with 'Space that moves...' and the word 'Logos' keeps coming up.

I just checked a web translator for ' Logos' (λόγος) and the following list came up:

Reason - Cause - Ratio - Word - Speech - Consideration - Oration - Spiel

Indeed interesting!

Also, I checked Wikipedia for 'Logos' and one part under Sufi aspects caught my eye::

"The concept of Logos in Sufism is used to relate the "Uncreated" (God) to the "Created" (man). In Sufism, for the Deist, no contact between man and God can be possible without the Logos. The Logos is everywhere and always the same, but its personification is "unique" within each region. Jesus and Muhammad are seen as the personifications of the Logos, and this is what enables them to speak in such absolute terms."

Again, interesting connections!

In Peace, Jameela

Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 3:33 am

nothing -> something -> everything

Post by spiritsci » Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:34 pm

Hi Bruce,

Using primary school math and algebra, here is a simple "light-hearted" way of putting some context to singularities, nothing, everything, something, and reciprocal ... in a TEACHER/STUDENT Q&A format.

Read as if you are the TEACHER asking the Q to a young STUDENT, and then answering once the student goes blank-faced and requests the answer:

Q1. Can you write an equation that demonstrates the process of how to create everything from nothing?

A1. Treat nothing as "0" and everything as "00" (infinity). Then take the reciprocal of nothing and you get everything. The equation is: [1/0] = [00] that is to say [the reciprocal of nothing] = [everything]

Q2. Now that you understand this process, can you write an equation that demonstrates the process of how to create nothing from everything?

A2. Again, treat nothing as "0" and everything as "00" (infinity). Then take the reciprocal of everything and you get nothing. The equation is: [1/00] = [0] that is to say [the reciprocal of everything] = [nothing]

TEACHER: So SOURCE created the Physical Universe out of "nothing" through some sort of "reciprocal" process. It also appears that "everything" can return to its a Source by again taking the "reciprocal" of "everything" created.

TEACHER: However, since we are dealing with infinities and reciprocals of zeroes, the maths leads to singularities that scientists call black holes, but they do not know much if anything about what black holes do, why they are there, or indeed whether they are real or simply figments of the math models they use to study this aspect of modern day "inventive" theoretical science.

TEACHER: So this begs the question:

Q3. Is there a way to look at and study the Physical Universe we can "observe" with our normal senses and instruments, and know that we are seeing the whole picture and not some distorted view that is fraught with black holes and other anomalies that arise from the complicated maths modern science uses?

A3. Well the answer is YES. You see, if we take a "whol-istic" view of the Physical Universe and note the reciprocal process we discussed earlier, we can get a better perspective of the whole picture by recognising that the Physical Universe exists as 2 inseparable contemporaneous parts or aspects: the part we can readily figure out (we might call this the part we can "observe" with our normal senses and instruments), and the part we can't normally or easily "observe" that is its reciprocal.

The equation we can use to describe the whole of the Physical Universe is then simply:

[X] . [1/X] = [ 1 ] that is to say

[The Observable Version of the Physical Universe] . [TheUnobservable Version of the Physical Universe] = [ UNITY ] = [ The WHOLE ]


[X] = [The Observable Version of the Physical Universe]

[1/X] = [The Reciprocal of the Observable Version of the Physical Universe]

= [The Unobservable Version of the Physical Universe]

TEACHER: Through this "Reciprocal System" perspective of the Physical Universe, you can now see that we are no longer dealing with zeroes or infinities, and therefore neither [X] nor [1/X] are either zero or infinite ... So this Reciprocal System view of the Physical Universe is devoid of singularities and black holes, and is truly holistic because when we consider the 2 parts together, we "see" the WHOLE thing.

What do you think of that?

STUDENT: Wow, how simple is that! ... I really get it! Do I have to go to University now, cause science doesn't seem to be teaching this sort of stuff and I'd rather learn more about something that is useful and productive?

TEACHER: Let me take that one on board and get back to you!!!




Posts: 9
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 9:12 pm

Source and Metaphysics

Post by drwater » Sat Dec 08, 2012 10:13 pm


I am also an engineer and found Larson's theory and RS2 to be quite fascinating. His book Beyond Space and Time gets into metaphysics somewhat, alluding to a "Sector 3", which is beyond the material and cosmic sectors. The book has many great insights, but Larson couldn't quite put his finger on some things in my opinion. Nehru's discussions on Theosophy are likewise excellent. Something I was recently referred to is Thomas Campbell's "My Big Toe" (where TOE is the acronym for Theory of Everything). This is a digital physics theory which provides an explanation for quantum mechanics, relativity, and metaphysics. Aspects of it seem to resolve into many of the core concepts of Reciprocal theory (i.e. discrete scalar units of space and time), but I have not had time to try to compare the theories point by point. Search for "Thomas Campbell My Big Toe Toronto" for YouTube videos of his workshop lectures in Toronto, which I think are some of his best.



Post Reply