Rick wrote:
2. desire to create an instrument to measure "states" that I am yet unclear about
Conventional instrumentation only has the capability to measure changes in "space", and thus is limited to very material data. Larson's Reciprocal System identified another half of the Universe, one based on "time", for which we have no instrumentality to measure, save our own "feelings", which don't run on a 9V battery with test leads.
For example, we can instrument a heart beating by the sound it makes, or the physical change of size of the heart as it pumps. We can measure the flow of blood thru the arteries and veins. But we cannot measure "life" in the body itself, or the pain of a broken heart. It is obviously some form of energy--a very strong energy--but we lack the instrumentality to measure even the smallest degree of it. We can only measure the spatial effects that this energy causes.
This is what Larson would call "cosmic" data, data from time rather than space. Some research was done on this by Reichenbach in his studies of Od and Magnetism, back in the 1850's using crystals and magnets, but the work never gained much acceptance, regardless of its accuracy.
Phil came up with the idea to build an instrument that can measure these forms of life energy--changes in "time" (not clock time, but coordinate time) as we do with changes in space. It would give the ability to measure the degree of life in cells without chemical testing--kind of like reading auras, but to a much finer granularity.
Most instruments are designed for feedback of some type. Take an aspirin, check your temperature. The thermometer gives the feedback to see if it worked. This is lacking in the energy/emotional healing systems. No feedback other than what the patient thinks they are experiencing. With energy-type instrumentation, a healer could put on some special glasses and watch the energy flow from the healer to the patient, and see what is happening to the life of the patient--and adjust the interactions accordingly. Feedback for the other side of the coin.
Rick wrote:
3. pure enjoyment in an unstructured place to challenge the minds and learn and share new ideas related to the theory.
We're after a "theory of everything", so that should be a pretty broad area!
Rick wrote:
Fundamentally, all three require that the first issue be resolved. To better help me know how I contribute more productively, I wanted to know how we were going to proceed in the concrete creation of the "educational component"--assuming that is the direction we are pursuing.
This is Phil's court, but let me make a brief comment... it is actually quite the challenge, given the subjective nature of comprehension, to teach new concepts to anyone. Even with the willingness to learn, there is the problem with current understandings (an unknown) and the re-mapping of them into a concise language that can be used for presentation. That is why math is so predominant in science these days--fixed set of rules and symbols to explain things. Unfortunately, math is also incomplete and cannot represent new ideas, and highly subject to reductionism (6/3 = 2 mathematically, but not conceptually, because the process of getting to 2 from 6/3 is lost). I think the first step to the "educational component" is to come to an understanding of "education", itself.
Rick wrote:
Let's use the last meeting as an example. We had a great discussion and those of us got a glimpse of the theory after several examples that better related to our thought processes. If those could have been noted and presented in the lay explanation, say in written form (by those who understand the theory) at the next meeting, we could use that as the basis for further discussion, explanation and filling in the blanks. We could refresh our discussion and use that material for going deeper into exploring the theory. The results would be the teaching summaries.
Sounds like a good plan.
But be warned, this theory is man-centuries from completion. It's a big Universe out there! What we have done is to find certain principles underlying our basic understandings that seem to apply to everything... and that primary principle is the "reciprocal relation", first recognized by Dewey Larson.
What I personally seek from these studies is to get feedback based on what all of you know--which is greatly different from what I know--and tell me, does it continue to hold true in your philosophy? Is this actually a universal principle? And if it doesn't hold true, what has to be changed to make it work in your understanding?
Rick wrote:
And when the free wheeling discussions occur (number 3 above) during the meeting, those too are noted and saved. Kind of like putting a puzzle together. This might allows full discussion and yet focus on the fundamental building blocks related to the basics of the theory. In that way nothing is lost, and there is a concrete outcome, movement and direction after each meeting--hopefully keeping everyone engaged in the process.
This is the fun part for me... to follow the eddies and currents of the Mind of the Universe, and just see where it goes and what new things can be learned. A lot of the developed theory comes from #3 here... the Halls of Valhalla revealing that magnetism is cosmic electricity... you never know what will click that connection. And another one just clicked... in writing this, I figured out what Edward Leedskalnin's "magnetic current" is! Guess I'd better write it down before I forget it. "Flashes of Insight" are really weird things!
Bruce
Every dogma has its day...
