Primer

[bperet]

I went over my notes for all the meetings we've had, and constructed an outline for a primer, based on the group's feedback. I tried to keep it as generic as possible, without using Larson's terms or much techno-jargon. Comments and suggestions appreciated. --Bruce

Reciprocally Integrated Systems Theory Primer

1. What is a "Reciprocal System", and what is this primer about?
   1. The discoveries of Dewey B. Larson
      Brief overview of what Larson discovered: the reciprocal relationship between space and time, and natural units.
   2. The re-evaluation of Larson's original work
      Nobody is perfect... Nehru and Peret's updates to Larson to fix some of the flaws in the original work.
   3. Where it ended up: Reciprocally Integrated Systems Theory
      Putting it all together from the ground up; Larson's concepts, new concepts added, and tying it all together through systems theory.
2. Some Basic Questions
   1. What is "space"?
      Where do we get our notion of space from, and how is it applied?
   2. What is "time"?
      Where do we get the idea of time from, and how do we normally use it?
   3. How do space and time interact?
      The missing link... one cannot exist without the other.
   4. Is what I see the same as what you see?
      The subjective nature of truth and reality.
   5. What assumptions do we have when we view everything about us?
      Vanishing points, parallelism, the world as a picture.
   6. What have we been trained to see, versus what is actually there?
      Identify limits on human perspectives.
3. Space, the final frontier
   1. Conventional understandings of the concept of "space"
      1. Inner Spaces
         Stuff that is contained (Western view, form)
      2. Outer Spaces
         Stuff outside the container (Eastern view, function)
   2. The Understanding of "Space" as "Volume"
      Taking the 3 dimensions of space, height, width, depth, and getting it back to a scalar magnitude--the idea of a "volume."
   3. "Amounts" of Space
      Understanding space as a scalar, in order to connect to time as a magnitude.
4. Time, the inverse frontier
   1. Conventional understanding of Time being a "change of space."
      The idea of time as duration of a spatial event.
   2. Clock time: past, present and future—where things were, are and will be.
      Ways we measure the movement of time, and the problems/assumptions in them.
   3. Unconventional understandings of the concept of "time"
      1. Inner Times
         Contained time... Larson's "time region", inside the box
      2. Outer Times
         Eternal time... Larson's "cosmic sector", outside the box
5. Space and Time working together
   Dealing with the ideas of "none" (zero) and "all" (infinity), and do they actually exist?
   1. Limitations of Space
      Infinity, Unity, the idea of quantized or discrete space.
   2. Limitations of Time
      Eternity, Unity, the idea of quantized time (ticks of a clock).
   3. Removing limits thru Cooperation
      Interstitial connections between space and time: " locations."
6. The Concept of "Motion"
   1. Cooperation of space and time
      Moving from space and time as "things" to aspects (views) of a "thing". Common analogy: husband (space) and wife (time) become a family (motion).
   2. What goes up, must come down: Inverse relationships
      How affecting one aspect always affects the other.
      1. Increasing space/decreasing time
      2. Decreasing space/increasing time
   3. Space and Time reciprocally related as Motion
      The reciprocal, inverse and conjugate connections to produce motion.
7. Types of Motion
   Moving the concept of motion into everyday experience to see motion in action.
   1. The Idea of "Speed"
      How space relates to time as speed; distinguished from velocity (direction).
   2. Inverse "speeds": Energy or Work
      How time relates to space as work; magnitude but no direction.
   3. Measuring Motion: quantity versus dimension
      Pointing out the difference between magnitudes of motion: motion in 2 dimensions is not the same as 2-dimensional motion.
8. What is good for the goose, is good for the gander
   1. Identical properties of space and time
      The isotropic nature of space and time, and how each is the other. Coordinate, vectorial, scalar, dimensional.
   2. Properties of Observation
      Location of observer, location looked at, which way is "up".
   3. Two different things, or different views of the same thing?
      Moving the object, or moving the observer; agreement of more than one observer.
   4. From Quantity to Volume: Building up space, tearing down time
      Space to volume to magnitude to time magnitude to time volume to the idea of Larson's "extensions pace", where space is constructed from time.
9. A New Understanding of Space and Time
   1. Time acts and behaves like space.
      Aspects are viewpoints and labels only.
   2. Space has 3 dimensions; Time has 3 dimensions.
   3. We see a quantity of space as “distance”.
   4. We see a quantity of time as “duration”.
   5. What we normally see is 3 dimensions of space, and 1 dimension of time.
   6. Where do we find 3 dimensions of time, and 1 dimension of space?
10. The Universe of Time
    Building the universe of anti-matter; the cosmic or metaphysical sector.
    1. The other half of the Universe
    2. Polarity: Anti-matter
       Polarity resolves in zero.
    3. Dichotomy: Inverse matter
       Dichotomy resolves in unity.
    4. Reflections in the Mirror: everything in space also exists in time
       anti-rocks, anti-trees, anti-people, etc.
    5. Universal cooperation: matter and anti-matter working together
       Address particle-wave and biologic.
11. Universal Split Personality: Material and Cosmic Sectors
    Connecting to Larson's ideas of sectors and levels, and how we perceived them with the human form.
    1. There are two reciprocally-related realms, one based on speed and one based on energy.
    2. The “speed realm” is the Material half of the Universe.
    3. The “energy realm” is the Cosmic half of the Universe.
    4. The two halves overlap each other… we see “speed” and feel “energy.”
12. Origins and Viewpoints
    Expanding the point of consciousness into a field of consciousness, in order to see just how we see.
    1. Where do we “see” and “feel” from?
    2. Points of Consciousness and Planes at Infinity
    3. Ego-centrism: The world revolves around us
    4. Undefined perspectives: zero and infinity
    5. Changing perspectives
13. Getting Some Perspective: Projective geometry
    1. What your eyes see
       Limitations on visual ranges and depth perception; the 2D snapshot of reality.
    2. What your brain interprets
       Re-assembling reality from what we see, and how we do it.
    3. Assumptions in interpretations
       What we assumed when we converted the illusion to reality.
    4. Virtual Reality
       Computers do the same thing, in reverse... take "reality" into illusion so we can use our physical senses to translate illusion back to our reality.
    5. Reverse engineering the Illusion
       The process of creating a virtual illusion; strata of geometry.
    6. Projectors and Screens: Plato's Cave
       How the assumptions connect to the strata as a series of filters.
14. Natural Law
    Try to hook the subject, object and viewpoint together from a unity (non-ego centered) perspective and some of Larson's basic concepts.
    1. The Uni-verse starts with Uni-ty
       Natural datum.
    2. The Unified Perspective
       The default camera and where it points.
    3. Natural Limits of Motion
       1. Minimum Quantities
          Either 0 or 1 (none/omission or one).
       2. Maximum Quantities
          Either 1 or unlimited; explain "no minimum" doesn't mean "no limit", but the quantity does not exist at all, so it cannot have a maximum.
    4. Man's Law versus Natural Law: Where science goes wrong
       Man's Law as a commandment of how things must behave.
       
       Natural Law as an observation of how things actually behave.
       
       How science uses Man's Law in observation, in order to prove theoretical results.
15. Making a Scene; Our Illusion of Reality
    1. Viewpoint + Assumptions + Motions = Scenery
       How we assemble all of the above into a "scene", and how it is interpreted.
    2. Know where your camera is!
       Can't see where you are going, until you know where you are.
    3. Yin and Yang: a trick of the camera
       1. Yang: the masculine, hot and straight
       2. Yin: the feminine, cool and curved
    4. It's all Greek to me... the Euclidean realm.
       How we interpret geometry when the camera hits different assumptions.
       1. Euclid: rectangular geometry
          The coordinate world of 'space'; why things move in a straight line.
       2. Euclid's wife: polar geometry
          The polar world of 'time'; why things rotation and spin.
16. Now What?
    Foundations have been laid; what other paths are available?
    1. Projective Geometry
    2. Light, Particles and Atoms; chemistry
    3. Astronomy
    4. Electricity, Magnetism and Electronics
    5. Psychology and Human Behavior
    6. Metaphysics
    7. Biology and Healing
    8. Spirituality and Ethics
    9. Social and Economic Interactions

[christina]

Bruce- WOW!!!!! Now that is a magnificent and fully loaded outline from which to work and start unraveling this vast and incredible base of knowledge that you hold and are keeper and beholder of. It's obvious to me at least that you not only know/think these workings of our universe/cosmos/spirit, but also experience and percieve it as you describe. thank-you for the inkling of beginnings, and I'm eager to have you expound and embellish on these concepts that so strongly vibrate as truths. I feel honored to know and work and learn from and with you. I also hope to be helpful and supportive of you and your very valuable work and life's path. You are very generous indeed. thank-you-christina

bperet wrote:

I went over my notes for all the meetings we've had, and constructed an outline for a primer, based on the group's feedback. I tried to keep it as generic as possible, without using Larson's terms or much techno-jargon. Comments and suggestions appreciated. --Bruce

[bear]

I wish we could tell how Christina really felt about these notes, and this outline. But since she's so subtle, quiet and demure, let me just say, "ditto." And thank you Bruce. Actually, when I saw your outline, I too looked forward to diving in to what you have presented here, and it also seemed to me that what you have presented could easily function as the rough outline for a book presenting these concepts/insights. Perhaps a book based on this outline could be the way to address the wider audience that Phil has mentioned lies behind our little discussion group.

For what it's worth, (and it's worth a lot) Christina's birthday falls on the weekend of Nov 11/12 (Nov 11, to be exact) and this she may not be available on the 12th, which was our tentative next meeting. Since Bruce has put together such an elegant outline, 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. Rick, your november is crazy-- any time this weekend? Dave? Scott? Phil? And probably most centrally, Bruce? (It is, after all, your outline.) I would say we start at the beginning of the outline, and move from there. Phil, your prepatory work-- and lecture-- probably led to this next phase. Thanks. Let's stay in touch. In joy-- Bear

[rick]

Yes, I too was quite unclear how Christina felt also hahahaha. I do appreciate her ability to succinctly summarize the feelings of us all.

Bear,as for your question, I will be in Denver this weekend coming back on Sunday, depending on what time I get out of Denver I can come directly to the meeting. That is as precise as I can be now.

Rick

[Phillip]

The material, spacial side of me wants to mess with the details.

The cosmic, temporal aspect is awed by your elegance. Your Primer

is the beginning of the cosmic version of Larson's Deductive

Outline.

In his Outline, he linked space and time, building from

fundamental (space small) to totality (space large). Your

Primer spans totality (time small?). My linear mind cannot

follow the development to the fundamental (time large?) in the

Primer even though I feel the completeness.

It occurs to me that I have not been formally trained in inverse

(or reciprocal) mathematical logic. It is different than

inductive logic. Induct is to add one piece into the previously

defined groups. How can we reverse logic and define the

individuals from the groups? That is not even inductive logic.

As I struggle to find the words to express my concept clearly,

the thought occurs to me that maybe our cultural systems and

language are so matter, materially orientated that we do not

have the language to accurately describe the inverse thought

processes.

Maybe it is only by joining together, meditating, brain syncing

and allowing beat frequencies, that we get inklings of that

inverse realm. Teaching without words (material symbols).

Teaching with energy? What are the corresponding cosmic symbols

(inverse words?) to represent the cosmic matter?

As Bear shared after our last gathering, there is an old Zen

saying, "Understanding is the booby prize." Which seems related

to the quote in Denslow's new Prologue, "One cannot confute with

logic that which was not learned by logic."

I would offer, space is not the final frontier, time may be the

final frontier, because we know "more" about space than we do

about time. Which leads me to, "Motion is the final frontier."

Until we recognize the reciprocally integrated natures of space

and time, we will completely understand neither.

[bperet]

Phillip wrote:

It occurs to me that I have not been formally trained in inverse (or reciprocal) mathematical logic. It is different than inductive logic. Induct is to add one piece into the previously defined groups. How can we reverse logic and define the individuals from the groups? That is not even inductive logic.

It is "deductive logic", where specifics are deduced from generalizations. Basically, Detective work where we have this crime scene called the Universe, and are trying to figure out "who done it", how, and why.

In Larson's video, he talks about inductive and deductive reasoning, and how they both need to be worked together to produce a solid theory (I guess that makes them reciprocals!).

Larson deduced that time must be 3-dimensional from the general group of the Period Table of Elements. From that, he induced that space and time work together as motion, then deduced the particles from the relationships, then induced atoms from particles and so on.

If one accepts that the natural datum of the Universe is Unity, nothing can be inducted from it, because it is all that can be--it cannot be added to. The only recourse is deduction, and according to philosophy, that first "deduction" from Unity is the concept of "free will", opposition to Unity/conformity. Larson calls it a "direction reversal", and we're off and running with a cascade of deduction and induction.

[bperet]

Phillip wrote:

What is space ?

What is time ?

How do space and time interact?

*** What is motion?

I wanted the reader to deduce that the interaction between space and time is motion, since we've found that starting with the concept of "motion" gets nowhere, fast. "You can't have motion without something to move!"

Phillip wrote:

Is what I see the same as what you see?

*** Is what I feel the same as what you feel?

***feel everything about us?

*** What have we been trained to feel, versus what is "actually there"? ("Actually there" is space based and so is not properly accurate.

Do need a section on feeling and intuition, since they are valid perceptions, but should come after the 3-dimensional nature of time and the cosmic sector is understood, because they are the time/space analogs to thinking and sensation. The Jungian "typeology" charts show this well, having the rational axis as thinking-feeling and the irrational as sensation-intuition (inverses).

Phillip wrote:

*** a distance with or without a radius

*** or radius and two rotations as Larson did.

*** Space can also be understood as a distance or area

*** Interestingly enough the first defination of space, the noun, is "a period of time"

Good point... need to add a section on "what is dimension", and something on the difference between volumes (things we can physically manipulate) and distance/area, concepts we can't pick up and throw in the back of the truck. (That is why people perceive space as volume--because it is tangible, whereas distances and areas are not).

Want to defer the polar/rotational stuff until "time" can be understood as the yin aspect of motion.

Phillip wrote:

Consensus must be a cosmic thing?

IMHO, a social thing, coming from the 2nd density group mind.

[bperet]

Updated section III and added the question of "Dimensions".

3. Space, the final frontier

1. Conventional understandings of the concept of "space"
   1. Inner Spaces; Stuff that is contained (Western view, form)
   2. Outer Spaces; Stuff outside the container (Eastern view, function)
2. What are "dimensions?"
   What is meant by a spatial dimension, in an everyday sense (lengths, areas, volumes), and discussion of how we interact only 3-dimensionally with the environment. (eg: cannot pick up a "length" and put it in your pocket).
3. The Understanding of "Space" as "Volume"
   Taking the 3 dimensions of space, height, width, depth, and getting it back to a scalar magnitude--the idea of a "volume" as an "amount." Demonstrate how coordinate information is lost when moving to magnitude.
4. "Amounts" of Space
   Understanding space as a scalar, in order to connect to time as a scalar. Distinguish between things we can manipulate (volumes) and things we can't (distance and area).
   1. Distances; "How long is this"--one dimension to one amount.
   2. Areas; the football field--two dimensions to one amount.
   3. Volumes; things we can manipulate--three dimensions to one amount.

[/][/][/]

[bperet]

rick wrote:

To add to your issue, I perceive motion, space and time as only something projected by the rational mind and its perception is mostly limited to a physical universe. Perhaps the language is different but vibration and energy could be similar manifestations that is perceived as motion. What is the fundamental underpinning? I am sure there are several levels of understanding each of us must sort through.

Larson, as do I, considers the "physical" universe to include all of the above. The "material" sector is the relation of space to time, s/t, which we see manifest as "things". The "cosmic" sector is the relation of time to space, t/s, which is the definition of energy, and is manifest as the fields between things; electric charge, magnetism, gravitation, auras, etheric flows (ether = motion from a cosmic perspective).

Somewhere earlier I stated that we "see speed and feel energy"... in Jungian psychology those concepts directly relate to the irrational valuing system:

"see speed" = sensation

"feel energy" = intuition

The rational thinking and feeling functions are how we value that input; "watch out for that tree" or "this place has such a nice feel to it".

Question is: should I add the "feeling/intuition" realm to the Primer outline, or does it need to be separate? That section would, by necessity, contain intangible concepts because of the tools of "observation" are based in time, not in space. Things like sympathy, discordance, harmony, waves and ethers--the inverse to the material realm of space. Not sure if it would help or confuse the Primer.

rick wrote:

I am attempting to see if this "system" accommodates more than just physical, mental-rational linear and scientific reality--that known only to human sensing or mathematical computation.

Yes, it does. Larson defined 3 levels in his initial works:

1) Inanimate (realm of atoms and chemistry; space OR time)

2) Biologic (living things, space AND time)

3) Ethical (beyond space and/or time)

As you may have guessed, there are probably 7 levels based on other spiritual and philosophic systems, and Larson lumped levels 3-7 all into level 3.

What is missing from Larson's original work is what you are asking about: the cosmic view of the inanimate and biological levels, based on the intuition, feeling, non-linear, non-local reality. Nehru and I addressed some of it by including the works of Counterspace, Theosophy and Rudolph Steiner in the research, along with other systems. It has given some tremendous insights, but it still needs a lot of work... perhaps the group can be a big help here.

rick wrote:

That can only be revealed in discussions, and the outline help guide and ground the discussion. I don't see the overview as a concrete document but a changing, fluid, flexible roadmap that help each of us (and the group) through the discussion process.

Exactly. Once we've talked it over, and firmed up sections of the outline, then I can start in on the gory details!

[rick]

Thanks Bruce,

I think what is key here is a need for term definition. Your explanation is helpful but that has to be front and center if we want novices to understand this. And those definitions are leaps for many people.

For example, physical means concrete to many people. A vocabulary of key terms would be helpful...as would brief explanation of terms like Unity--how is that different from totality or wholeness; reciprocal--how is that different from opposites or complementarity;and how do those definitions differ from "accepted beliefs or knowledge" and lastly space, time, ethical, and scalar--is that someone who climbs things?

My point is a few examples of everyday experience of each and examples of how these differ from standard knowledge would help novices not get lost so quickly.

As for your questions about the primer if observations are key to understanding the basic concept it should be included to some extent to keep the movement through the information.

Rick