Reciprocal System Research Society

if reality is a construction of active participation, perhaps the notion of interference patterns is parallel.

lets say a source emits a wave pattern (such as "sweet", "kind", "brick", "oppression") and I emit a wave pattern in condition of being/becoming (such as "sleeping", "immature", "desperate", "harmonious", "aroused", "studying")

then reality is the instantaneous perception of wave fronts colliding and producing intelligent interference patterns?

the image in my head is clear but the words still seem muddled. Another wuestion to ask would be what are the archetypes? Sources that emit specfic wave patterns, or specific interference patterns that arise with resonance/dissonance between two sources?

what about incmoing/outgoing waves?....

I think an individual has constitue a knot in the medium of space/time that emits wave patterns and is affected by wave patterns (I am sure I am not the only one to ever consider this model of reality).

To me that seems to explain the temporal/spatial nature of phenomena - such as "out of sight, out of mind" or "telepathy" or "empathy" or "conversation" or "poltical party" or "friend" and "enemy".

what about this source/medium constructin of reality?

WarmSylph wrote:

then reality is the instantaneous perception of wave fronts colliding and producing intelligent interference patterns?

Waves are only half the picture. When we view temporal events from a spatial perspective, we see wave functions. It is the nature of the connection between Euclidean space and Counterspace. Therefore, you should look at perception like the wave/particle duality of the photon -- both sides need to be considered.

Reality occurs on different levels. There is a physical reality. There is a subjective reality. There is a consensus reality. They all have form (particle) and function (wave).

I was just reading in a book on Theosophy that it is the linkage between matter (particle) and spirit (wave) that creates what we call "consciousness." Consciousness is the center of all perception of reality. When consciousness looks at spirit, it sees wavefronts. When consciousness looks at matter, it sees objects. One is as equally valid as the other.

WarmSylph wrote:

Another wuestion to ask would be what are the archetypes? Sources that emit specfic wave patterns, or specific interference patterns that arise with resonance/dissonance between two sources?

I've always viewed an archetype as the original "template" from which function and form are derived. In your terms, archetypes would be the specific wave patterns; the pure tones. The instances of the templates, us, would be the interference patterns, for what are we, if not the sum of our knowledge and experience from many sources?

WarmSylph wrote:

what about incmoing/outgoing waves?....

In wave functions, propagation speed is instantaneous, so they do not act like ocean waves -- the change is everywhere, immediately, so there is no concept of incoming or outgoing. There "is" or "is not."

WarmSylph wrote:

To me that seems to explain the temporal/spatial nature of phenomena - such as "out of sight, out of mind" or "telepathy" or "empathy" or "conversation" or "poltical party" or "friend" and "enemy".

Read Larson's "Beyond Space and Time". It addresses this issue.

WarmSylph wrote:

what about this source/medium constructin of reality?

In a Universe of Motion, a medium is not required. Motion and Manifestation are one in the same.

Waves are only half the picture. When we view temporal events from a

spatial perspective, we see wave functions.

: such as "she doesn't love me anymore" or "that apple is ripe" or "the sun is setting" or "my house is big" ?

It is the nature of the connection between Euclidean space and Counterspace. Therefore, you should look at perception like the wave/particle duality of the photon -- both sides need to be considered.

: I appreciate this clarity.

Reality occurs on different levels. There is a physical reality. There is a subjective reality. There is a consensus reality. They all have form (particle) and function (wave).

: so dualistically, medium and behavior ? or, expression and intent?

I was just reading in a book on Theosophy that it is the linkage between matter (particle) and spirit (wave) that creates what we call "consciousness."

: what is the link?

Consciousness is the center of all perception of reality. When consciousness looks at spirit, it sees wavefronts.

:wave fronts or wave funtion? perhaps theres not a difference. so when conscioussness encounters spirit it perceives oscillations between thesis/antithesis (i hate you/i love you/middle point, I know this/I don't know that/ middle point)

When consciousness looks at matter, it sees objects.

: I hate that this much, I love this that much?

I've always viewed an archetype as the original "template" from which function and form are derived.

: this discussion is incredibly architectural, I am sure I could insert this dialogue at school and not a thing would seem amiss. I love it.

So to tie in the thread zen and I are going at with regard to the archetypes, I consider there to be an existential hierarchy of : principle, archetype, image - and zen considers princple and image to be the result of archetype. What is your comment on the above differing of opinions and what is your opinion on this condition?

In your terms, archetypes would be the specific wave patterns; the pure tones. The instances of the templates, us, would be the interference patterns, for what are we, if not the sum of our knowledge and experience from many sources?

: I don't think i clearly get the picture. If the archetypes are the pure tones, then we, in our resonance/dissonance with these tones, come to know them through "resonance" or "disparity" ?

WarmSylph wrote:

what about incmoing/outgoing waves?....

In wave functions, propagation speed is instantaneous, so they do not act like ocean waves -- the change is everywhere, immediately, so there is no concept of incoming or outgoing. There "is" or "is not."

why is this? I feel it to make sense but I'd like to know what line of though t this follows from.

WarmSylph wrote:

To me that seems to explain the temporal/spatial nature of phenomena - such as "out of sight, out of mind" or "telepathy" or "empathy" or "conversation" or "poltical party" or "friend" and "enemy".

Read Larson's "Beyond Space and Time". It addresses this issue.

alright, thank you.

WarmSylph wrote:

what about this source/medium constructin of reality?

In a Universe of Motion, a medium is not required. Motion and Manifestation are one in the same.

hmmm. I'll have to ponder this.

to translate acess into the above quote:

motion - hating you (specific ambiguity)

manifestation - hating you (in whatever endless expression this takes)

? am I just not there yet? I will give it time. But I still find such joy in the academic architectural nature of this discussion. I appreciate your postings.

_Adam

might a logos precipitate archetypes and facilitate a mythos ?

WarmSylph wrote:

such as "she doesn't love me anymore" or "that apple is ripe" or "the sun is setting" or "my house is big" ?

The former is applicable; "love" is just an inward motion -- it brings things together. "Hate" is an outward motion -- it pushes things apart. They are still just basic "motions" called "e-motions".

The latter three are just statements of condition.

WarmSylph wrote:

Reality occurs on different levels. There is a physical reality. There is a subjective reality. There is a consensus reality. They all have form (particle) and function (wave).

: so dualistically, medium and behavior ? or, expression and intent?

Yes.

WarmSylph wrote:

I was just reading in a book on Theosophy that it is the linkage between matter (particle) and spirit (wave) that creates what we call "consciousness."

: what is the link?

The book is titled, "Space, Time and Self" by E. Norman Pearson. I do not know if it is online. I have the paper copy.

WarmSylph wrote:

:wave fronts or wave funtion? perhaps theres not a difference. so when conscioussness encounters spirit it perceives oscillations between thesis/antithesis (i hate you/i love you/middle point, I know this/I don't know that/ middle point)

Yes. It is called "dichotomy" and often expressed as "ambivilance".

WarmSylph wrote:

When consciousness looks at matter, it sees objects.

: I hate that this much, I love this that much?

More like "I hate this; I love this".

WarmSylph wrote:

I consider there to be an existential hierarchy of : principle, archetype, image - and zen considers princple and image to be the result of archetype. What is your comment on the above differing of opinions and what is your opinion on this condition?

First, define in terms of MOTION, "principle", "archetype" and "image", then you will answer your own question.

WarmSylph wrote:

: I don't think i clearly get the picture. If the archetypes are the pure tones, then we, in our resonance/dissonance with these tones, come to know them through "resonance" or "disparity" ?

Exactly.

WarmSylph wrote:

In wave functions, propagation speed is instantaneous, so they do not act like ocean waves -- the change is everywhere, immediately, so there is no concept of incoming or outgoing. There "is" or "is not."

why is this? I feel it to make sense but I'd like to know what line of though t this follows from.

Linear equations and matrices. Since "matter" is really "motion", and "motion" does not require "medium", the interactions are unbounded functions. Either the function exists (has a non-zero amplitude), or it doesn't (zero amplitude).

WarmSylph wrote:

motion - hating you (specific ambiguity)

manifestation - hating you (in whatever endless expression this takes)

? am I just not there yet? I will give it time. But I still find such joy in the academic architectural nature of this discussion. I appreciate your postings.

Sounds like you are getting the general idea. Always consider what things "do", as well as what they "are".