Reciprocal System Research Society

Bruce,

Follow-up on the meeting:

Given Larsen's motion creates, or space and time emerge out, of motion--this physical manifestation (external) should have a reciprocal internal motion that would probably be spaceless and timeless, (realm of spiritualists, mystics etc) which might be Phil's "cosmic". It suggests something that is not mathematically deterministic.

The efforts thus far in or initial meeting are on the physical notions (box) that comply with mathematical properties. And that needs to be clarified and taken to a logical end. The abstract nature of the language is problematic in explaining the theory in real time. If one can't find simple explanations on which are built other simple explanations/visuals, Larsen's work will remain obscure or occult in the original sense--hidden.

rick

I am not aware of what exactly was discussed, however since Bruce is off line...

rick wrote:

Given Larsen's motion creates, or space and time emerge out, of motion--this physical manifestation (external) should have a reciprocal internal motion that would probably be spaceless and timeless, (realm of spiritualists, mystics etc) which might be Phil's "cosmic".

Yes, this was exactly what we had hit upon earlier, that the motion of Larson is just one aspect of Free will. The other aspect we call 'linkages'. Linkages behave in the way you point out, being beyond both space and time, like a third sector (ref. Larson's "Beyond Space and Time") also being the source for understanding parapsychology. Please refer to the forum topic Linkages and Consciousness.

rick wrote:

If one can't find simple explanations on which are built other simple explanations/visuals, Larsen's work will remain obscure or occult in the original sense--hidden.

The visuals thingy is something that needs some work, and as far as I know EVERY person who has come across his work has trouble with it [me included.] However, apart from the visuals, could you mention which parts appeared complex to you?

Cheers,

Gopi

Gopi,

thanks. The entire language structure is difficult for novices. We were discussing how does one explain the Larsen basics to the uninitiated--for example, a 13 year old person. Thus the very basic discussion about language and basic beliefs of Larsen--to show how it is relevant in the real world.

Examples of definitions: free will, linkages.

Did he big bang begin with free will, if there is an unconscious how does free will express?

rick

rick wrote:

The entire language structure is difficult for novices.

Actually, the basis for the language terms is the Ra Material (see www.llresearch.org), which defines the relationships of Free Will and calls the reciprocal aspects "Light" and "Love". Since much of the physics explained in there matches the RS, the same terminology is retained.

rick wrote:

Did he big bang begin with free will, if there is an unconscious how does free will express?

In Larson's RS, there is no comment on the origin of the physical Universe, but just states that motion is the natural datum. So in the RS there is no need of a 'Big Bang' to make things fly apart... to 'move' is the natural state, not to stay still. However, if what you are asking is about the start of any kind of manifestation, then as far as I know, you are correct... manifestation began with Free Will with the reciprocal aspects Light and Love [this may help the 13 year old kid!] or in other words 'motion' and 'linkage'.

And similarly, on the level of the person, conscious and unconscious are the two reciprocal aspects of his/her mind. One is 'light' and the other 'love', one 'local' [your consciousness] and the other 'nonlocal' [your un-consciousness]. So your free will is never out of the game, it is only that the conscious manifestation is more obvious.

Cheers,

Gopi

thanks Gopi,

I find it interesting that the basis for this very mechanical, mathematically precise theory in the physical world starts with the amorphous and subjective notions of light, love and free will. So Larsen's theory includes the Ra Material?

It is not his theory but a combination?

I am not clear how this would help a 13 year old understand Larsen's theory: start with light, love and free will and then we apply mathematical formula? I am being skeptical here as a way to clarify the basis of the infrastructure...just trying to push for a clarity that underpins the theory as it seems the manifestation is clear based on the application of mathematical principles.

rick

Hi Rick,

rick wrote:

I find it interesting that the basis for this very mechanical, mathematically precise theory in the physical world starts with the amorphous and subjective notions of light, love and free will. So Larsen's theory includes the Ra Material?

Larson tended to think like an engineer and did not develop his theory using those concepts. However, the philosophical basis for the theory is obviously taken from Samuel Alexander's work "Space, Time, and Deity". I recommend reading this one, as it is an important work in the area of emergentism (theories of emergence). Emergentism has been growing in popularity as it has application in the area of the science-of-complexity (such as work done at the Sante Fe Institute).

The subjective notions of "light", "love", and "free will" originated from Don Elkins (physicist), who happened to be a friend of Larsons. Don blended his own understandings of the Reciprocal System with his esoteric readings and the result was the "Ra Material", which is supposedly channeled information from other-dimensional beings.

However, before Larson and Elkins, there were the Theosophical notions of the equality of space and time. And before that there was the concept of "dialectical monism" (i.e. yin/yang) which seem to be compatible with the Reciprocal System.

BTW, I'm not sure about the application of "light and love", but if you consider "free will", in the context of "panpsychism" - where all objects are also subjects, then "mind" at the lowest-level of manifestation, say a photon, is the seemingly "random" choice of direction that a particle may take.

Mike

rick wrote:

Given Larsen's motion creates, or space and time emerge out, of motion--this physical manifestation (external) should have a reciprocal internal motion that would probably be spaceless and timeless, (realm of spiritualists, mystics etc) which might be Phil's "cosmic". It suggests something that is not mathematically deterministic.

Correct, but consider where one stands, and in which direction they look.

From a spatial perspective, the cosmic sector (universe of anti-matter) appears both spaceless and timeless, since it is constructed bass-ackwards from our spatial perspective:

Our perspective: Space (fixed gridwork) has objects attached, which change locations (creates motion) at a specific frequency we call "time".

Cosmic perspective: Time (fixed gridwork) has anti-objects which appear to be attached in the voids where we attach spatial objects (for example, if we attach objects where lines cross in a grid, the cosmic anti-objects attach objects in the center of the hollow cubes in the grid). Thus, all temporal objects appear "spaceless", since they don't hook where they are supposed to. When anti-objects change location in time, it creates anti-motion, which we perceive as "energy", forces, fields and such. The frequency at which anti-objects change we call "space", since it is basically running over spatial locations in its path of temporal movement.

The macrocosmic view of spacelessness/timelessness is the cosmic sector; the Universe of "anti-matter", defined mathematically (for Dave) as the conjugate of the material sector (what we exist in).

The microcomsic view of spacelessness/timelessness is the "time region", the microscopic realm inside the Atom, defined as the inverse of the material sector.

Larson also postulated a 3rd sector, one that sits in relation to BOTH the material and cosmic (anti-matter) sectors, which he calls the "ethical" sector. Most paranormal events can be explained by the cosmic sector--motion in time, instead of space--so that would technically make the cosmic sector the "metaphysical" half of the Universe, from our point of view. Larson's "ethical" sector, however, was the flip side of the physical/metaphysical dichotomy, a place where concepts like "self sacrifice", "faith" and "trust" exist as real objects.

It is also important to remember... just because we don't have the tools to measure something, doesn't mean that it cannot be measured. We just have to learn a little more.

rick wrote:

The efforts thus far in or initial meeting are on the physical notions (box) that comply with mathematical properties. And that needs to be clarified and taken to a logical end. The abstract nature of the language is problematic in explaining the theory in real time. If one can't find simple explanations on which are built other simple explanations/visuals, Larsen's work will remain obscure or occult in the original sense--hidden.

Larson's work has remained obscure, for these very reasons.

The problem I have found with teaching the system can be summed up by an old farmer saying, "Don't bother teaching a pig to sing. It's a LOT of work, and annoys the pig."

To understand these non-spatial perspectives of the Universe, one must be open to concepts not normally taught by our social systems or culture. This makes for a BIG learning curve. When was the last time a 4th-grader came home, with homework on telepathy or telekinesis? It doesn't happen in our "civilized" societies, as these topics are taboo in the popular religions. Yet, they are also the basis of understanding the non-spatial realms.

What Larson did with his original Reciprocal System was to violate a LOT of scientific "taboos" and hence the work, no matter how maticulously defined, will not get accepted. RS2 has the additional problem of delving deep into the entire range of "taboo" subjects, such as ethers, ghosts, ethical and anti-ethical behaviors, "magical" systems and the like. But they are all part of the Universe in which we live.

They say that the things most appreciated in life, are the ones you had to work really hard to get. RS2 and these concepts are definitely brain-melters; it's a challenge to all the concepts you've been taught by "polite society." For me, at least, it is worth it, because it has given me a way to see things I never thought possible, and to interact with the Universe at a totally different level than just the "physical."

Yes, Veronica, there IS a Santa Claus. And if he moves through time/space instead of space/time, he CAN get all those packages down the chimney by morning!

Bruce Wrote:

To understand these non-spatial perspectives of the Universe, one must be open to concepts not normally taught by our social systems or culture. What Larson did with his original Reciprocal System was to violate a LOT of scientific "taboos" and hence the work, no matter how maticulously defined, will not get accepted. RS2 has the additional problem of delving deep into the entire range of "taboo" subjects, such as ethers, ghosts, ethical and anti-ethical behaviors, "magical" systems and the like. But they are all part of the Universe in which we live.

They say that the things most appreciated in life, are the ones you had to work really hard to get. RS2 and these concepts are definitely brain-melters; it's a challenge to all the concepts you've been taught by "polite society." For me, at least, it is worth it, because it has given me a way to see things I never thought possible, and to interact with the Universe at a totally different level than just the "physica! l."

Rick: I don't disagree with the comments, however if one can't explain it simply and not get too caught in jargon then the system will not be appreciated or even considered by many. And your self-fulfilling prophesy will come true--that no one will accept it. No one will accept anything unless the material can be made more accessible for someone to make a reasonable assessment. This same problem exists with several obscure authors--and the issues are the same--obscure language, dense material and multiple nuances. People have choices and unless there is an easy or less dense manner in which to enter the material then people will bypass it. Not everyone is prone to tilting at windmills--we each select which speaks to us. It is not a judgment of a person's worth, it is more a choice of how a person wish to spend their valuable time--free will.

If the group has no interest in simplifying and using more common language or clarifications that is fine. That was not my understanding as to what we were attempting. But I disagree that one has to "pay dues" and jump through hoops to prove worth or appreciate the insights. This is not a value judgment it is a communication issue.

My sense is the only way one can test, inform and challenge "polite society (regular and scientific)"

is to present the material hear the response refine the presentation material and continue presenting until such time the theory gains greater acceptance or is not able to withstand the challenge.

People access and interact with the Universe on different levels all the time. If one want to prove, or have greater acceptance then one has to throw pearls among swine or be satisfied that personal knowledge is enough...but if the later is chosen, then it is not "polite society (regular and scientific) that doesn't understand.

Bruce wrote

It is also important to remember... just because we don't have the tools to measure something, doesn't mean that it cannot be measured. We just have to learn a little more.

Rick: And, it is also true just because we can rationally explain something theoretically doesn't make it necessarily true either. Not everything can be measured is a fundamental truth by certain schools of thought.

Bruce wrote:

"From a spatial perspective, the cosmic sector (universe of anti-matter) appears both spaceless and timeless, since it is constructed bass-ackwards from our spatial perspective:"
Question(s): Are we just playing with words here? What is it we are truly pointing at behind the words? What are we pointing at when we say something "appears" as timeless/spaceless-- where is it appearing, and when? And further, how can it be constructed if there is in fact no time or space in which to construct it? And perhaps more importantly, the mystics might ask, WHO is it that is doing the constructing, the looking, be it inside or outside, cosmic or material? And where is this so-called WHO standing? Can we truly dismiss so quickly the presence (Presence) of what the mystics point to as the "timeless/spaceless" (experienceless) Being, simply by saying it's in another sector (where time, rather space, is king?) Aren't we still in the sector of time/space conceptualization that inevitably leads to simply more time/space conceptualizations? I'm not so quick to dismiss the timeless/spaceless as simply a different view. I need more meat, more clarification here.

Bruce wrote:

Quote:

Most paranormal events can be explained by the cosmic sector--motion in time, instead of space--so that would technically make the cosmic sector the "metaphysical" half of the Universe, from our point of view. Larson's "ethical" sector, however, was the flip side of the physical/metaphysical dichotomy, a place where concepts like "self sacrifice", "faith" and "trust" exist as real objects.

Question: Would metaphysicians agree that their insights, and understandings, not only in regards to paranormal phenomenon but also to the every day normal phenomena, apply to only "half' of the puzzle? Don't metaphysicians in fact understand the workings of such phenomena as clairvoyance, clairaudience, telepathy, etc., as part of the "normal" (if generally unexplained and ignored) universe?

I'm intrigued and attracted to the concept that "principles" such as faith, trust, self-sacrifice, might indeed, in what the metaphysicians call the subtle realms, appear to us as "objects," (although objects imply an edge, and thus a limitation, where universal principles have no such limitation.) Let's talk more about the "ethical" sector.

Bruce wrote:

Quote:

To understand these non-spatial perspectives of the Universe, one must be open to concepts not normally taught by our social systems or culture. This makes for a BIG learning curve. When was the last time a 4th-grader came home, with homework on telepathy or telekinesis? It doesn't happen in our "civilized" societies, as these topics are taboo in the popular religions. Yet, they are also the basis of understanding the non-spatial realms.

Questions: Is there in fact, as the mystics suggest, a "realm" beyond the conceptual? Yes, of course, our current religious systems are deeply ingrained and invested in "conceptual" frameworks, as are, let us admit, most of our legacy scientists and "new age" theoreticians. But concepts are constructs of the mind. Is there a realm beyond the mind? A realm beyond consciousness itself that is, as the mystics imply, our native, natural being? Our true home? Is this "home beyond mind" in fact divided between material and cosmic? Aren't these simply further (what the mystics would call limiting) concepts?

And Bruce wrote:

Quote:

RS2 and these concepts are definitely brain-melters; it's a challenge to all the concepts you've been taught by "polite society." For me, at least, it is worth it, because it has given me a way to see things I never thought possible, and to interact with the Universe at a totally different level than just the "physical."

Truly, these concepts are not often taught by "polite society." And yet, there is a relatively wide population of souls who have consciously been freeing themselves from the fetters of "polite society" for many decades, and to whom these concepts are intriguing, and yet, still and alas, still merely concepts. Bruce is exactly right when he says (or implies) that it is imperative that we interact with the universe at a totally different level than just the physical. Some of us out here look at the engineers among us and say, "Thank God, you're finally starting to get it! Now, just drop your mind and come play, be free."

I love it. (This play that we have together.)

In peace and joy-- Bear, (no longer a test dummy, now a softly singing, sometimes irritated pig.)

Friends-- I extend my apologies, where appropriate, for previous class disturbances. I sometimes get carried away, and step on toes, either through flippancy or reactiveness. I trust until we realize perfection, we can forgive each other's imperfections.

As mentioned in our kitchen table discussion, I have been deeply influenced, persuaded, expanded and uplifted in recent years by the teachings of Advaita, and most especially by the teachings of the contemporary sage, Nisargadatta Maharaj. This morning I re-read some passages from his dialogues that seem to bear on our discussion. Someone asked Nisargadatta:

Q. How do you see things?

M.: One and all are the same to me. The same consciousness (chit) appears as being (sat) and as bliss (ananda): Chit in movement is Ananda. Chit motionless is being.

Q. Still you are making a distinction between motion and motionlessness.

M. Non-distinction speaks in silence. Words carry distinctions. The unmanifested (nirguna) has no name, all names refer to the manifested (saguna.) It is useless to struggle with words to express what is beyond words. Consciousness (chidananda) is spirit (purusha), consciousness is matter (prakriti). Imperfect spirit is matter, perfect matter is spirit. In the beginning as in the end, all is one.

All division is in the mind (chitta); there is non in reality (chit). Movement and rest are states of mind and cannot be without their opposites. By itself, nothing moves, nothing rests. It is a grievous mistake to attribute to mental constructs absolute existence. Nothing exists by itself.

Q. You seem to identify rest with the Supreme State?

M. There is rest as a state of mind (chidaram) and there is rest as a state of being (atmaram). The former comes and goes, while the true rest is the very heart of action. Unfortunately, language is a mental tool and works only in opposites.

Q. As a witness, you are working, or at rest?

M. Witnessing is an experience, and rest is freedom from experience.

Q. Can they co-exist, as the tumult of the waves and the quiet of the deep co-exist in the ocean?

M. Beyond the mind there is no such thing as experience. Experience is a dual state. You can not talk of reality as an experience. Once this is understood, you will no longer look for being and becoming as separate and opposite. In reality, they are one and inseparable, like the roots and branches of the same tree. Both can exist only in the light of consciousness, which again, arises in the wake of the sense "I am." This is the primary fact. If you miss it, you miss all.

****

Q.: We are (life is) motion; we are (life is) motionless. Is the "I am" that Maharaj points to as the "primary fact" thus the "pivot" around which (or more precisely, in which) the reciprocal system revolves?

East and west do seem (at least to me) to come together in this excerpt.

Food for friday thought-- in joy-- Bear