Yes, but one could pick any theory and suggest the same thing without developing a meaningful explanation - that is, a scientific, or more objectively based one.mwells wrote:I would think so, in the sense of how RS plays a part to explaining biological evolution and evolution of consciousness that is indicated in this thread.So there is a 4th-density *purpose* of RS?
mwirth wrote:
In that sense, I'd say "purpose" is one or more functions that allow an entity to uniquely adapt to its environment.What's your view of how the concept of "purpose" plays a part in evolution?
mwirth wrote:
By definition there would be numerous purposes that one could posit to any action. The question would be, what requirements for a purpose would it fulfill, which of course are entirely subjective, unstated, and unscientific.Do you think there was an evolutionary "purpose" to Dewey Larson's efforts to creating this new paradigm at this stage of the planet's supposed evolutionary transition?
mwirth wrote:
Right, it's all entirely subjective and kept at the nebulous spiritual-intuitive level to avoid accountability for any claims.It's open to opinion of course and opinions that are shaped by experiences. Those who had direct experiences ie group experiences at the 1987 Harmonic Convergence or World Peace meditations on New Year's may have opinions that are "pro-purpose". They got a taste of 4th density and the SMC experience and consequent consciousness effect. I personally had some of this effect.
mwirth wrote:
But wisdom is not a counterpoint to "emotional/intuitive/feeling aspect", "thinking" is. Wisdom is just experience (of mind) that "works" or enables adaptation (i.e. congruent with nature or some artificial system). And experience is a combination of feeling/thinking.mwells wrote:Of course, it's best to be discerning and careful. Applying the "wisdom aspect" to balance with the "emotional/intuitive/feeling aspect" is good practice.I'd suggest being careful about framing their work as far as purposes go, else we might be missing the point. BTW, you do realize that the basis for RA's prognostications about the RS and 4th density come directly from Don Elkins, who, coincidentally, studied it?
mwirth wrote:
Neither specifically. Missing the point in the sense of someone getting side tracked.When referring to "missing the point" is this regards to the RA material in general or in regards to their comments about RS?
mwirth wrote:
Yes, I understand the story. However, it was clearly Elkins. The thought processes are the same. Carla = "Q'uo" and Don = "Ra". The influence is...overwhelming, to the point where "coming directly" is a rather appropriate characterization.I'd have to disagree with your view of "coming directly" from Elkins since he was the questioner and not the channeler. Maybe you're referring to the influence he may have had towards the channeling. Again an opinion can only be raised.
mwirth wrote:
OK, but then you'd be redefining what a "vibration" is. It really doesn't matter. Until the new concepts get defined in language, people will use words that seem close, but don't quite fit. And of course this invites misunderstanding. The new age crowd loves to characterize everything as "vibration", but it's all still intuition (apprehension).Isn't the general meaning of "Reciprocity" itself a basic concept of vibration? It's various definitions seem to combine both manifestation of object (motion) and relation between them (linkage).
mwells wrote:Actually it was your post about Holistic Mathematics on the other RS forum that got my attention and I've got copies of several various works. I recieved a couple emails from Peter regarding holistic approaches to proving the Reimann Hypothesis and his Euler papers.Yes, however a vibration is a function - time-varying according to some imposed abstract reference. A reciprocal relationship, however, is the basis for any dichotomy and does not necessarily imply a function (or action, or actor(s)).
Take a look at Peter Collins' work on cognitive models - his "Radial" and "Holistic" Mathematics. RS2 is currently around the "H1" level.
As far as vibration being just a time-dependent function, I think there may be deeper or broader meanings that can be applied to the term "vibration" that doesn't necessarily denote time-dependence.
As one example, there is the term "alternation" that denotes a kind of time-independent vibration used in "alternating infinite series" when approaching the value of an irrational number such as Pi. It could be viewed as a pre-existent mathematical object (w/o time) or as an ongoing process.
mwirth wrote:
Until we know a "ding an sich", the nature of the game is that everything is "open to debate". And presumably, through framework like Collins is developing, we could at least have some kind of shared context instead of wasting time talking past each other while disingenuously championing undeveloped pet theories. The RS really can't progress under, what amounts to, a perverse lack of candor of its proponents.Perhaps even the reciprocation process of communication that takes place "non-locally", temporally and spatially, between emotionally close partners ie twins can be considered a time-independent vibration of some sort. It's open to debate.
mwirth wrote:
Static forms include dualistic relationships such as open/closed, light/dark, cold/hot, old/young, circle/line, in/out, up/down, and space/time.BTW, in my post I used the term "reciprocity" in the specific sense, as a dynamic term because it defines an action versus your using the term "reciprocal relationship" which you say can be viewed in static or dynamic terms. Just to get a clear idea, what would be an example of a static form?