Reciprocal System Research Society

Bear wrote:

The topics, and your collective company are inspiring, yet the atmosphere is still a bit like water-- without a container, a "holder" of some kind, the inspiration released gets spread out in all directions and/or dissipates.

As a water-bearer, Aquarius, let me comment... the best and most exciting groups that I have been a part of have always been formed ad-hoc, where people get together on the fly and discover a common interest, and then spend some time twisting and turning to see how they fit in to the overall concept. I have found when a person is comfortable with the way they fit into the scheme of discussion, then the "inspiration" stays, and everyone learns from the diversity offered.

"Dissipation" tends to occur when someone feels they no longer have anything to offer--even though they may--and that usually means the focus of the topic has been narrowed down too much and become exclusionary. The second case is if the group gets too large, and people don't have the opportunity to contribute what they know on a regular basis.

We are dealing with a "theory of everything" here, which is naturally limitless. But each person comes with their own limitations to understanding, based on their personal interests. I see it as facets of a crystal; many ways to view the same thing. That is what I enjoy about our conversations... they go all over the place, yet there is still a common "core" to it all, and I learn a great deal from it--particularly the things that I have taken for granted that shouldn't be! Who ever thought that there could be so may different ways to conceptualize "space"! To me, that is invaluable information.

The "formal" and "informal" aspects of the group I would see as "lecture" and "research", respectively. The formal part is presentation and feedback, in order to come up with a course. The informal aspects are were we follow the meandering of the path, to see what is out there, whether it be atomic physics or Horsetooth Falls. I consider it "raw data" like the scientists used to do when they encountered an unknown--just get whatever info you can get, wherever it takes you, then try to make sense out of it later in a "formal" presentation. Best of both worlds.

As to what the "core" is here... I think it is coming to an understanding of certain Natural laws on the way the Universe operates and expresses itself, in generic terms. More of a philosophy than a science; something that can be applied by anyone, at any level or perspective. IMHO, that is Bear's "Holder"--the strange attractor of Universal Truth.

I would like to know what other people think, if you would care to contribute.

Thanks,

Bruce

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

bear wrote:

Christina and I put forth the suggestion that we might meet again this weekend-- like Sunday again, if others might be available for that. My house would be available again, if appropriate. And probably most centrally, Bruce? (It is, after all, your outline.)

Sure, I'd be up for a Sunday get-together. 1pm, as usual?

I am planning to be at Bear's Sun. 11/5/06 at 1:00 pm.

See you there.

Are we meeting every week now????

Dave B

No, but we won't be meeting next week, so we'll be meeting this week (per previous e-mails-- did you receive?) Hope you can make it-- Bear

Bear, Rick and Mike,

Thanks for your comments. This is kind of exciting stuff.

I think I am learning something. I would like to meet sooner

rather than later. At least Bear, Rick, Phil and Bruce to

explorer these space-time definitions that are beyond objective

and subjective.

Bruce and I are busy through Friday night. Rick and Bear, when

can you guys make it? Rick, you seem to be the busy one, right

now. When could you meet? The ideal location will have

internet available, so maybe Mike could join us in a virtual

conference room.

Joe's?? Coffee shoppe across from the county building has wifi access. After friday, my time is free for the next week. The week of the 27th I will be gone and the Thanksgiving day weekend.

Rick

Alas, friends, this is a squeaky weekend for me. Family commitments most

of Saturday, and I committed a month ago to a "recipricol poker game"

with a half dozen old buffaloes on Saturday night (Reciprocal because

the money in my pocket, after a little time and space, ends up in some

other bloke's pocket.)And then my wife and I may be doing a Denver gig

on Sunday, though that is still not set. So my participation is iffy.

Set a time, and place, and if I can make it I will. But this weekend is

iffy. Thanks-- Bear

Maybe, sometime next week?