Meeting recap

[rick]

Gentlemen,

As requested, here is my understanding of the meeting that took place tonight. As one of the test dummies knowing nothing about Larsen here is my take away from the meeting. Please let me know where I have gone wrong or if I am in the ballpark. I hate to state the obvious, but it helps me understand the fundamental basis of the theory.

Larsen's theory is fundamentally based on motion. That motion manifests, creates, allows the emergence of space and time. Space and time are linked and present or emerge in tandem out of this motion, or in Larsen's terminology, as a reciprocally.

Given this basis, there can not be just space or just time alone. You can't have one without the other. Therefore, the discussion we had about taking time out of the equation leaving just space could not occur in the Larsen world. Space and time are linked as reciprocals--manifestations of motion. If a person attempts to take motion out of the equation there is no space or time (manifested reality) only potentiality.

So regarding the discussion about assuming "just space". Larsen would suggest theoretically one can take visible time or motion out of the perception of the 5 physical senses. However, any existence of space implies time (its reciprocal) and motion because by assuming space one assumes time and motion simultaneously.

My sense is he would argue that time and motion are implied and present but just not available to the limited sense capacities of the human body. For example, I can see the head of a penny with my eyes, what I can't see is the other side of the coin if it is flat on the table. The other side exists but I can't see it. that other side is time or motion in the discussion about space.

Am I close?

Rick

[bperet]

What I got out of tonight's meeting was remembering the way I was taught to view space, time and motion. Here's a summary of my notes:

1. Space is considered the pre-extant, eternal framework; it exists, always existed, and always will exist as a fixed and immobile "gridwork", like the lines on a sheet of graph paper, but in 3 dimensions (x, y and z).
2. The lines on the "paper" of the Universe don't move; the intersections form x,y,z locations on which we can attach objects.
3. "Motion" is a change of spatial coordinates. An object slides from one x,y,z to another in some rectilinear direction.
4. "Time" is the number of ticks a clock makes to accomplish that sliding from one set of coordinates to another.
5. Time, like space, is invariant. It always proceeds at the same rate--one second is always one second (like a heartbeat).
6. Time cannot change direction; it is always towards the future, at the same, constant rate.

The conventional sequence of events is then:

Space -> free will -> manifestation -> displacement -> motion -> time

Larson, on the other hand, considers "Unity" to be pre-extant and the eternal framework upon which the Universe is built. In the Reciprocal System, the sequence is:

Unity -> free will -> motion=manifestation -->

Yang aspect of motion --> space -> spatial displacement -> motion IN space

Yin aspect of motion --> time -> temporal displacement -> motion IN time

As you can see, there are THREE "motions" listed. The first one, equivalent to manifestation, is what Larson calls "scalar motion", having aspects of space and time and the attribute of "magnitude". The second, "motion in space", is what we commonly understand as motion. The third, "motion in time" is NOT "time travel", but what we consider as properties of the Soul, extra-sensory abilities, "soul mates" (right next to each other in time, though can be miles apart in space).

Larson then moves into a concept of "displacement", which is a speed differential from Unity, that can be measured in both aspects of space and time. That displacement can then operate within a coordinate framework and is where we get the conventional concepts of spatial movement.

We see the spatial displacements as typical, x,y,z changes on a fixed grid. What we don't see directly are the temporal displacements, which are the properties of the atom (atomic number, mass, valences, etc).

But both aspects always work together thru this concept of Tao/Vishnu/motion. We are essentially chunks of "time" moving thru "space", and that is what Larson calls the "Material Sector".

Of course, to keep the net motion of the Universe at Unity, there also exist chunks of "space" moving thru "time"--the Cosmic Sector--the realm of anti-matter, ghosts, ethers and an invisible 2nd half of the Universe that is virtually unexplored.

[/]

[bperet]

rick wrote:

Larsen's theory is fundamentally based on motion. That motion manifests, creates, allows the emergence of space and time. Space and time are linked and present or emerge in tandem out of this motion, or in Larsen's terminology, as a reciprocally.

Yes. I always liked the description of the box (a container): the box, itself, is "motion", the inside is "time" and the outside is "space". If you've got any one, then you have all three. Manifestation (the box) is what you get when Unity is split into space and time--like the box "motion" is what hold these aspects apart.

rick wrote:

So regarding the discussion about assuming "just space". Larsen would suggest theoretically one can take visible time or motion out of the perception of the 5 physical senses. However, any existence of space implies time (its reciprocal) and motion because by assuming space one assumes time and motion simultaneously.

I would restate that as "out of the perception of the 5 spatial senses," because we have a half of ourself that has perception in 5 temporal senses, if we train ourselves to use them. (They come stock with the "equipment", and we just lost the operator's manual.)

rick wrote:

My sense is he would argue that time and motion are implied and present but just not available to the limited sense capacities of the human body. For example, I can see the head of a penny with my eyes, what I can't see is the other side of the coin if it is flat on the table. The other side exists but I can't see it. that other side is time or motion in the discussion about space.

In this example, the penny, itself, would be the "motion" and the other side, "time." We see "motion", because motion IS manifestation; space is "location". Now if you can sense the etheric flow or aura about the penny... then you are getting a glimpse of the unseen side.

rick wrote:

Am I close?

Yes, you're very close.

[Phillip]

I was struck by the space=yang (dry), time=yin (damp) inside the

yin/yang circle starting point for the discussion. It seemed

significantly at odds with my legacy Euclidean, rectilinear

space framework without which nothing exists, moves or

interacts.

In my considerations I use the term "legacy" (from its

dictionary definition) to mean, "inheritance, something that has

come (with value) from the past". I do not intend it to be

derogatory. On the contrary, my legacies have been critical to

bring me to this point of understanding.

Last night, I took no notes. I just let my thoughts swirl

around with the new concepts. It seemed to me we might be

describing the cosmic nature and material nature of space (and

time).

That which I call cosmic nature may actually be cosmic nature as

perceived by us/me as a material observer. How can I/we

directly observe cosmic nature unless I am a cosmic observer?

Certainly my primary legacy observation tools are material.

I am struck by the reciprocal nature of the two space concepts,

space as a box and space as yang. One seems concrete, material

and firm. The other seems vague, indefinite and distant. And

yet they both are valid starting points for consideration.

How exciting if I/we can investigate, understand and blend such

seemingly diverse concepts as starting points to build a unified

model. We will have to provide multiple logical paths from the

many current, legacy, individual models towards the beginning

model and only then can we build a new model.

These comments seem not logical and sequential. It seems the

emerging origin I am perceiving is not a point at the center.

It seems an origin with the circle boundary of the yin and yang.

How does a universe of motion exist and start without space and

time? In other words, how does legacy space and legacy time

result from motion rather than motion only occurring inside space

and time.

It is hard to release legacy concepts when there is no clear new

concepts. Yet clutching to the old makes it hard to clarify the

new.