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.
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Hired!

Post by bperet » Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:55 pm

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.
You Hired! Though you may have to start with Stephen Hawking and work your way down.

Very good job. If you want to do that in Xtranormal (a program that allows you to do conversation with cartoon characters), I'll put it up on the website.
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Level 3

Post by bperet » Sun Dec 09, 2012 2:00 pm

His book Beyond Space and Time gets into metaphysics somewhat, alluding to a "Sector 3", which is beyond the material and cosmic sectors.
Remember the way Larson does his analysis, by the process of elimination. His Level 3: Ethical realm has everything that does not fit into the first 2 levels, inanimate and biologic. That does not infer that eveything belongs there... it's just his big box of "things to sort out." There may well be more levels beyond the third, and when someone starts sorting out the contents of the level 3 box, there may be 4, 5, 6 or 7 levels, that end up corresponding to much esoteric literature.
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Ratio happens

Post by bperet » Sun Dec 09, 2012 2:23 pm

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?
Larson could never answer the question of "what creates a direction reversal?" because that led to theories of creationism, which was not the subject he was investigation--his was the structure of the physical universe. So he just postulates that it does occur, implying in other works that even if we knew the answer, it would be unlikely that we would understand it.

Then there is also the issue that clock time is an illusion that consciousness creates using a Euclidean projection. The concept of the clock does not exist in the natural reference system, so there is no cause-and-effect, creator-creation, nor source-destination. It is extremely difficult to grasp the concept of a clock as a scaling factor, but it is exactly how it works. We normalize (reduce the denominator to unity) the unobserved realm by changing the scale of the observed realm to compensate, giving us the concepts of distance (length) and duration (clock), on which geometry is built.

For me, the idea of a Source is a matter of faith, not science. I accept that "ratio happens" and I know nothing about the Source. With faith, I can start with something and eventually work my way up to everything, only to discover that everything was the nothing I had faith in, to begin with.
Every dogma has its day...

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

Probing "Time"

Post by Jameela » Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:37 am

Maybe it is my incomplete understanding of RS, or maybe it is RS that is incomplete? But to me, something about the nature of "Time" assumed by RS doesn't quite seem right - like we are putting together two different phenomena.

I conceive of Time flowing, like after hitting the forward button on an old tape recorder; the tape is a space dimension, but it is useless without it moving through the tape-head. But there is more to it...

Take a dichotomy; like our mathematical multiplicative inverse, or in words like: Space and Counterspace, or Cosmic Sector and Material Sector. If for the sake of argument, we call such a dichotomy a 'lateral dichotomy', with all its inherent creation, energy and activity, - then if that dichotomy returns to the Unity whence it came, what happens to all the "creation, energy and activity"? Is it not logical, that it must still exist as some sort of Potential? ...It cannot be physical - as the necessary dichotomy to produce anything 'physical' has returned to Unit value! So in putting other clues together, my working theory is, that it exists as some sort of 'Mind Potential' or Thought Energy.

So considering this development between having a lateral dichotomy, or alternatively having just still Mind Potential at the datum Unity, - we have thus another sort of dichotomy - we could for the sake of argument call this a Vertical dichotomy!

- Creative Action dichotomy - Still Potential Unity - Creative Action dichotomy - Still Potential Unity -

To clarify, I have attached a favorite diagram depicting two types of dichotomy.

So what of 'Time' in either of these lateral or the vertical dichotomies. The meaning of 'Time' cannot be the same!

If this suggestion is correct, then it would evoke very different explanations for Etheric or Prana phenomena compared with a model based on a single dichotomy that has multiple layers, like "third ethical sector" or whatever. ...So this is what I am on about referring to the relevance of a "Source" (Unmanifest Potential) in building up our model! ...Get the overall picture outlined before we attempt to complete the detail of any one part.

...Again this is where the input of diverse people helps, and for that we need a good Text Book! ...But to write the Good Text book we need a full picture... and so Ad infinitum (not that word again!)

:-)

In Peace, Jameela
Attachments
glyph.gif
Diagram: One spilts into a dichotomy then rejoins into Unity - which is another sort of dichotomy!
glyph.gif (3.48 KiB) Viewed 614 times

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

'Logos' meanings and 'Reverse Speech'

Post by Jameela » Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:17 am

Another thought worth sharing came to me concerning the variety of meanings implied by "Logos":

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

Consider also the strange phenomenon of "Reverse Speech". - This is where a recording of human speech is played backwards and recognizable word-phrases are in some cases clearly audible! Often the words are like a reality check commentary on the original speech!! Sometimes the recording has to be played in reverse at a different speed than it was recorded. ...Truly weird stuff - worth checking out!

One of the most famous cases is Neil Armstrong's words; "That's one small step for man..." but in reverse it says: "Man will space walk."

There are many, many examples, but this particular quote is especially curious in view of the considerable evidence that now contradicts what we were told to believe about the Apollo missions!

That example aside; concerning 'Logos', 'Time' and the strange phenomenon of 'Reverse Speech', plus the conclusion of RS2 that Time in the Material Sector is 'Polar', we might be putting some most interesting stuff together here!

It is essential to first be conceptually correct, before we place too much reliance upon our mathematics!

We use ds/dt ...but regarding abstract or scalar motion, is "dt" what we assume it to be?

Garbage In = Garbage Out

In Peace, Jameela

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

Time, zero and everything

Post by Ardavarz » Tue Dec 11, 2012 7:05 pm

This can be seen also from another perspective - if "everything" is considered not as infinity, but as zero. Basicly zero (nothingness=everything) and one (unity) can be considered as dual aspects seen from different points of view - like the light-speed can be taken as absolute unit (from "subluminal" point of view) or zero (from the "light's point of view" since as consequence of the Lorentz transformations at the light-speed distance and duration don't exist).

If we think of the universe as "everything" this is somehow a self-contradictory notion (like any other term beginning with the prefixes "every-", "all-" etc.). I mean - a "thing" can be pointed at ("named") only by its abstraction from its background, while the "whole" in absolute sense ("everything") by definition could not has any background (otherwise if there is something beyond "everything", it would not be "every thing"). So it cannot be "named" (or as it's stated in Tao Te Ching: "Tao that has name is not the real Tao" ) - this would be as if trying to point at all "things" simultaneously in which act all pointings will cancel out each other. Thus "everything" is more or less an empty word (an attempt to name something that cannot have any name) and we may consider "everything" as non-existent (or rather on this level existence and non-existence are essentially the same). Then it would seem more proper to symbolize it with zero instead of infinity. But if the universe ("everything") is zero, then every "thing" that is smaller than the universe is less than zero, i.e. it is negative. Thus beyond the appearances of the conventional "reality" our world consists not of presences, but of absences. We may then construct the seeming positive existences by pairing or squaring the negatives (or in general case - by even number of multiplications or raising to even powers) which could explain the fundamental duality (bipolarity) observed in all phenomena. On the conventional level human thought usually goes in the opposite direction (i.e. it progresses from natural numbers toward more abstract concepts like zero and negative numbers), but this is because the cognitive process re-creates "reality" backwards, while the ontological order is reverse.

Negative numbers represent lack, non-holeness or incompleteness, i.e. the essential "neediness" of all things that keeps them moving - just as in the ordinary life what urges us to act is not what we have, but what we don't have (things like hunger, thirst and desire - they have positive names, but represent negative qualities, i.e. lack or need of something). The physical aspect of this would be the "energy" (from Greek en ergon - "in action") - it is traditionally defined as potential ("ability to perform work"), but in its essence this is the urge to fill the lack of some quality, so it should be considered as negative - the defect of nothingness (or lack whole-ness, i.e. zero). The psychological aspect of it is "desire" or "will". Consider the double meaning of the word "want" as desire ("want to") and lack/need ("want of") - this reflects the mental/physical duality of all motion. Thus we may say that "every thing" moves because it wants. This fact corresponds to the first and the second Noble Truths of Buddhism - that the essence of every compound phenomenon is "suffering" (or "pain" = Sanskrit duḥkha) and that the cause of suffering is "desire" (or "thirst" = Sanskrit tṛṣṇa).

If on conventional level it seems that there exist positive "things" (objects), in actuality these are comprised of moving energies (negatives), that constantly try to extinguish themselves (i.e. to reach the zero-level). We may consider them in turn as comprised of imaginary quantities (just as positive quantities could be seen as even powers of the negative ones). What represent these imaginary quantities? Time! This is the fundamental flow ("motion") reflecting the impermanence (Sanskrit anitya) of all compound phenomena: nothing is, everything flows - this has no beginning and no cause since it just couldn't be otherwise (it's essence is not to be, but always to change). Indeed, if the time is imaginary (as assumed in Special Relativity), wouldn't this mean that velocity (s/t) is imaginary too? Then the energy (as proportional to the second power of velocity) would be negative as it should be (and same with the force, because acceleration would be negative too). Thus maybe the fundamental unit of motion is not the natural unit, but the imaginary unit (or the ratio would be not 1/1, but 1/i).

I am inclined to think that the so-called "life-force" (prāṇa, , élan vital, orgon etc.) as being actually the energy of Time which is the moving force between all physical and mental phenomena (manifesting as energy and information respectively). In his theory of the "asymmetric causal mechanics" N. Kozyrev suggests that it has rotational quality, accumulates in stelar bodies and living organisms and interacts non-locally. There can be no thinking without time. The very definition of the unit of information ("bit") as resolving the uncertainty between two equally probable alternatives tacitly implies time, i.e. difference between indetermined ("before") and determined ("after") state. We may interpret these states/moments/phases as Yin (symbolized by broken line in I Ching = two alternatives) and Yang (whole line in I Ching = one alternative) respectively, the time-flow as constant change between them, while its unfolding in three dimensions would give us the eight trigrams (ba gua). The 64 hexagrams thought to represent moments of time or phases in all processes (Leibnitz once noticed thier correspondence to the binary code) are traditionally interpreted as combinations of two trigrams - the lower one representing internal (or initial) phase and the higher one representing the external (or subsequent) phase (we may correlate them with the cosmic and the material sector). Thus in a way the time is thinking (information processing) and the thinking is time. In itself it is "motion without something moving" - everything happens, but nothing ever is. As the Buddhist teaching states all phenomena are devoid of self (anātman) and empty of own substance (svabhāvaśūnyā). That's why there is motion, but nothing that moves; there is thinking, but no mind that thinks; there is creation, but no creator.

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

...on My Big T.O.E.

Post by Jameela » Wed Dec 12, 2012 7:49 am

Dear DRW,

Thank you for that reference, it looks rather interesting. - There seems to be several leading people who have independently gone a long way forward into probing the real nature of the Universe. But what I like about RS and RS2, is that other folk have also been involved with the development of its concepts.

Regarding Dewy Larson's posthumous 'Beyond Space and Time', I downloaded and started to read it, but I found it so frustrating and skeptical of spiritual phenomena (I am a spiritualist) that I'm afraid I gave up on it - so the good parts of it are lost on me because of its style.

My 'quest' did not start as a intellectual drive looking for someone to answer the big questions in life, rather it was my own personal searching to make sense of my own mixed-gender - Yin and Yang. ...I have always had a spiritual awareness in me, but over this and the mixed-gender issues, I eventually clashed big time with orthodox religion! This is all in the past now, but my quest into searching anomalies continued into researching all kind of 'paranormal' phenomena and weird inventions, which in looking for explanations lead to the profound writings of other people who have also had 'unorthodox' lives.

I run my own website which has the theme: "Between the Opposites - Probing the Mind based Universe of Divided Motion" (which incidentally was written before I ever came across the Reciprocal System!) http://www.al-ruh.org/

In Peace, Jameela

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

...on "Time, Zero and Everything"

Post by Jameela » Wed Dec 12, 2012 8:22 am

Dear Ardavarz,

That is a very profound.

Yet as we bring the Abstract down into the Concrete; to be correct is not enough, it also needs to be useful.

Your phrase: "nothingness=everything" is so full of poetic and esoteric meaning, but mathematically...?

I too have pondered much over whether the true Base is "Zero" or "Unity". I am attracted to RS and RS2 because it makes a mathematically usable model. Though I feel there is further evolution yet to happen, possibly at the conceptual interface.

I do like your ratio: 1/i and also your linking of Life force energy (Prana etc) with the energy of Time. This clarifies further my own thoughts of a vertical dichotomy as described above. There is much I need to meditate upon in what you have said. Thank you.

Regarding my own "working theory", I certainly DO NOT count Creation and Creator as two separate items; rather they are the same in the sense: 'The Poet and the Poem'. One without the other is meaningless!

Without a Poem, there is no Poet

Without a Poet, there can be no Poem

Is our difference just semantics?

In Peace, Jameela

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

Jameela,

Post by drwater » Sat Dec 15, 2012 5:48 pm

Jameela,

Yes, Beyond Space and Time does try to resolve as much as possible on a physical and cosmic sector basis, which on one hand is a little frustrating, but is at least keeping true to Larson's methods. I thought he did have some interesting insights. Thomas Campbell's theory starts at a more fundamentally spiritual level and broader level, with our physical universe as a subset. He tends to hand off details on material physics to others, which is why I thought RS theory could be some of the details. I took a quick look at your web site. Your "mind based universe" has many similarities to Campbell's theory, of which one aspect is that conciousness is the basis for everything.

Thanks for all your postings here and thanks to Bruce and others for the thought provoking replies.

DRW

Sun
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 5:50 am

Tao Te Ching

Post by Sun » Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:14 am

Ardavarz

Very interesting to me you mentioned Tao Te Ching and 64 hexagrams, but i think you got it wrong. The first sentence in Tao Te Ching should be translated to "Tao that has name is not the common Tao". The Chinese Tao Te Ching introduces highly similar concepts of Natural Reality and Artificial Reality(http://forum.rs2theory.org/rs4nondummies), and the Dao is unity. What the Buddhist talking about devoid and empty is teaching the illusionary nature of Artificial Reality. The concept of scalar motion fits with these east philosophies very well.

Post Reply