An Idea

[Fredrick]

From what I can understand about my own experience The 6th sense is the mind which is a portion of our identity that allows the experience of individuality which becomes cognition of the collective. The 7th sense is insight and is comprised of social cognition, social perception and the ability to discern matters, it is our sense to make sense of our world.

It is in the 6th sense I experienced higher sensory perception which I call Subliminal Intelligence. When I experienced this larger awareness I found myself in a situation comparable to...at the end of our five senses is a screen...it now had a big hole in it...too many subtle impressions getting in so I kinda had to stay out of large crowd situations. I had to limit myself to more one on one situations because it was enough to just sense impressions from one person. I could now know this person from body language, expression in eyes, facial expression, posture, demeanor...through all this I had a total sense of whomever I was with. I could now conceptualize people, situations, events and know truths of things. I had an adaptation period of probably 2 years just to adjust to this new sense. I am fully adapted to it now.

You may not understand this and then again you just might, but we are supposed to listen with our emotions but we are rather conditioned to repress our emotions rather than to deal with them and learn to direct them into stability...so we have failed to complete our emotional domain...this would be important because "the logic of emotion brings cognition" so the starting point for higher sensory perception is emotional awareness.

Of course it would take me a very long post to explain the 6th sense which is the mind because it is many spatial dimensions like precognition, telepathy, remote sensing, OBEs and dealing with higher visual awareness...I think we call it the paranormal but as far as I am concerned it is just human possibilities and potential for mind/sense abilities....

Thank you for sharing what is a personal experience, Mikal. If I were to place your words and experience into an image, I could actually also use a pyramid. Though in our younger years we are fully grounded in this reality, we do not get the whole picture or consider the pyramid in front of us the whole picture. Over the years we start to climb and rise on our side of the pyramid of life, and though we see more, we also have a blocked view by that very pyramid itself. At some point in life, we either get to a corner location and view so much more than before, or we can even reach the apex, and get a full 360 view on our reality (which can be fascinating but also scary).

Have you considered placing the 6+ senses in a 12 format, Mikal? I am reminded of the zodiac in which the first 6 signs are the singular (the me) signs, and the last 6 signs are the plural (the us) signs. I can imagine that exactly at the border between me and us the view would be spectacular.

Yet, I want to honor Pat here as well. He showed that in space 8 is a very important number. A cube has eight pointy corners, and as such it is the groundwork for matter. Our reality, however, does not take place in space, but here on earth, and the maximum number of positions possible in our reality of a few feet removed from earth is 6. Two positions out of the spatial 8 are not real for us: we cannot stand in mid-air, and we cannot live our lives 6-feet under. So our reality can be translated into a cube standing on one of its corners: our reality is based on earth (the actual ground itself) of which we live off but are not actually part of. The 7th and the 8th positions are real from the perspective of mother earth, but not for the normal human body and brain. The 6 positions can be experienced from a me-perspective or an us-perspective (that of course includes the me-perspective), and that are always limited in perspective; only in the abstract can we reach the overall perspective.

What is interesting about the 6 positions is that each is a personal position or personal step. Our perspective informs us about our reality. The entire cube (tilt-pointed into earth) can be considered a different form of a pyramid as well. The pyramid is four bases, and a single top that both is and isn't singular (i.e. has a dual character): 6 positions.

Your 7th (or 13th) position is in that case the one up in the air: we may anticipate something that is not part of our daily reality, but which we hope will be part of our daily reality. It is a location of vision, of planning, of a view that stretches beyond our daily reality that is based on 6. In it, we cannot do anything additionally; we do not even have words to show others this is where we are at, but we realize we are in that special position nevertheless. It is as if we realize that there are 8 spatial directions (as if we feel with our feet and senses that the earth isn't flat), but we see and understand only the ordinary 6 of them (7 if you include the flat earth). The 8th position is out of sight for us.

[austintorn@aol.com]

The 8th position is out of sight for us.

Unless the economy improves.

[Fredrick]

Tough one Fredrick. I would leave it to Felix to answer. He is the scientist I am not.

Just wanted to clarify that after the Big Bang till the time matter developed, all the forces would have developed. They would have been acting on something, what was it and why did the forces develop at all???

We agree, Dipayan, though I'd say you have shown yourself to be quite knowledgeable and of having a smart brain. My answer is that the original potential shattered into locally independent parts. To find a singular answer between the parts requires then a single delivery within that potential only; it is not required directly as adding up to 1 in our materialized reality. Since there are self-based aspects within our universe, the parts already do not need to add up to 1, for the result due to synergy is already more than the parts.

Still, the particles we find need then be placed in a background entity that is 1 and that will explain the individualized behaviors of the parts. The mechanism of matter is the key to the ToE, and that mechanism must show a theoretical 1 (or a hypothetical 1), and though mechanisms of different levels could/should differ somewhat, these overall mechanisms exist nevertheless at all levels. My hypothetical unit is just one example that adds up to 1 at the potential level from which the parts of atoms derived. The egg broke, and now we have a sunny-side up with yolk and egg white (and shell pieces on the side). We do not have to have both the origin and the result in front of us to understand the actual correlation. Lining the two situations up in a past and a present (a potential and a materialized universe) suffices.

I can't see the problem with spin and the fabric of spacetime (aether).

At the quantum level spin is the mechanism behind electromagnetism and it is about the way that the waveform passes through the fabric of spacetime or aether. Particles themselves do not spin as they only exist for a fleeting moment of time (some say the Planck time). At this level spin is not about the rotation of matter but the behaviour of the waveform as it passes through space.

At the macro level - where we experience things - spin is about the behaviour of real matter in our real world. It involves rotation of clusters of real matter particles which make up articles, planets and galaxies etc.

What I'm saying here (and it's only MHO) is that the manifestations of spin at the quantum (i.e. local) level and at the macro (non-local) level are different phenonema and should not be viewed as the same thing. I can't see where the 'flatness' of the universe comes into this as that is concerned with curvature (not spin) and the apparent rate of expansion/contraction of the universe.

Merry Christmas to you too, Felix (or should I have written that as Crissmas?),

If the whole of the universe were to have spin, we would be able to see that. The flat universe shows there is no spin at this level.

We appear to agree that the local level and the non-local level are not identical. Yet for that to be possible, space-time fabric needs to be either also fragmented at some level or be a phenomenon of nothing (an abstract of reality). If there is a single space-time fabric condition, it must accommodate two aspects that are conflicting; a clear impossibility. It makes me wonder why you want a single space-time fabric.

The same delivery we would agree on (and I mean including the space-time fabric) is delivered when that fabric is itself cut up in (large) parts. We would then not disagree, but it would ask of you to give up on the fifth element (or the space-time fabric) as encompassing/including the entire universe. I can accept the fifth part if it is itself a broken/fragmented entity.

[Fredrick]

Quote:Fredrick
The question I'd really like to see answered: how can one place two mutually exclusive actions into one framework?

Reply: Easy. Expand the old frameworks or find a new one.

You are not saying anything here, Jim. I can read your words, but there is no info inside.

Quote:Fredrick
No matter how we look at it...

Reply: Well, i obviously disagree.

If you see the universe as being a combination of particles, fine, but i see the universe as a Whole divided into discreet units, by virtue of the space between them, while maintaining "Wholeness" by virtue of their synchronized spin.

It is the interplay between these two seeming opposites that provides the functionality for the system.

You are making assumptions here, Jim, that are not supported by any further reasoning. Will you provide reasoning? Your words alone are not enough.

Quote:Fredrick
if we agree that matter in our universe has spin that is localized spin (at various levels of intricacy), then an impossibility exists of connecting the local level (with spin) to the larger level (without spin)...

Reply: If we view the universe as a giant generator, with the particle as the rotating element and the rest of the universe as the stator, all connected together by the fields thus generated, we have spin and no spin as part of the same framework.

That would be a good answer if the universe worked that way. Your delivery, good as it may seem, misses one level of depth. In reality, we have separate spins (and quite a whole lot of them) that do not interact with each other. To propose they do interact on a deeper level but not providing further information is like proposing god or a generator and be done with it: each of them is indeed a single word, but not a real answer. I hope I do not come across as upset, but I believe I propose a fully supported delivery, and I'd like to see the same of you. I do not provide reasoning where the potential for our universe came from, but I do provide a full delivery on the mechanisms of our universe.

Quote:Fredrick
and still consider that there can be one underlying entity of space-time fabric underneath this all. It would require something that we must consider impossible.

Reply: Unless the space-time fabric is also a function of spin-motion. Seems like all we have to work with is energy and motion. The third element, that which regulates said movement, must be a field. The field is the unifying element. It isn't energy or matter, but information.

Like you have said, perception is the key. Looking at the universe as an information processing system generates a different scenario at all levels. In this view, we don't have a machine or an explosion, but a process that corrals energy and turns it into matter-memory. Many a seeming paradox vanishes in this light.

I think we are getting closer together here. Yet, with placing an informational field centrally as the generator, we are also moving towards the more abstract side of the materialized universe. I believe in the actual universe that according to all information (and we have gathered a whole lot of information already) is a plural manifestation. I believe it is us, humans, who are trying to turn this plural situation into an actual singular entity, and (for obvious reasons) do so quite unsuccessfully. I don't know why people have such a hard time giving up on singularity. We all had two parents, we live as singles, couples, but always in groups, no one is alone in this world (of 6.5 billion people plus many more animals and plants).

Seasonal cheers to all,
jim

Cheers to you too, Jim.

[Max™]

Matter isn't a seperate thing from spacetime, it is just a different state.

You describe people in a dance : matter in a spacetime.

I describe people assuming the state of a dance : spacetime assuming the state of matter.

[insomniac]

You are not saying anything here, Jim. I can read your words, but there is no info inside.

That's the way it is sometimes with different points of view.
Especially on this subject. I think the (holistic or particle)point of view is locked into our perception, maybe at birth. Many liken it to the different ways our hemispheres process information.

Sorry. Didn't intend to piss you off, just seemed like you were close to getting it.

Everybody enjoy your piece of oneness.

cheers,
jim

[Mikal]

Thank you for sharing what is a personal experience, Mikal. If I were to place your words and experience into an image, I could actually also use a pyramid. Though in our younger years we are fully grounded in this reality, we do not get the whole picture or consider the pyramid in front of us the whole picture. Over the years we start to climb and rise on our side of the pyramid of life, and though we see more, we also have a blocked view by that very pyramid itself. At some point in life, we either get to a corner location and view so much more than before, or we can even reach the apex, and get a full 360 view on our reality (which can be fascinating but also scary).

Have you considered placing the 6+ senses in a 12 format, Mikal? I am reminded of the zodiac in which the first 6 signs are the singular (the me) signs, and the last 6 signs are the plural (the us) signs. I can imagine that exactly at the border between me and us the view would be spectacular.

Yet, I want to honor Pat here as well. He showed that in space 8 is a very important number. A cube has eight pointy corners, and as such it is the groundwork for matter. Our reality, however, does not take place in space, but here on earth, and the maximum number of positions possible in our reality of a few feet removed from earth is 6. Two positions out of the spatial 8 are not real for us: we cannot stand in mid-air, and we cannot live our lives 6-feet under. So our reality can be translated into a cube standing on one of its corners: our reality is based on earth (the actual ground itself) of which we live off but are not actually part of. The 7th and the 8th positions are real from the perspective of mother earth, but not for the normal human body and brain. The 6 positions can be experienced from a me-perspective or an us-perspective (that of course includes the me-perspective), and that are always limited in perspective; only in the abstract can we reach the overall perspective.

What is interesting about the 6 positions is that each is a personal position or personal step. Our perspective informs us about our reality. The entire cube (tilt-pointed into earth) can be considered a different form of a pyramid as well. The pyramid is four bases, and a single top that both is and isn't singular (i.e. has a dual character): 6 positions.

Your 7th (or 13th) position is in that case the one up in the air: we may anticipate something that is not part of our daily reality, but which we hope will be part of our daily reality. It is a location of vision, of planning, of a view that stretches beyond our daily reality that is based on 6. In it, we cannot do anything additionally; we do not even have words to show others this is where we are at, but we realize we are in that special position nevertheless. It is as if we realize that there are 8 spatial directions (as if we feel with our feet and senses that the earth isn't flat), but we see and understand only the ordinary 6 of them (7 if you include the flat earth). The 8th position is out of sight for us.

Hi Fredrick....pertaining to placing the senses in the zodiac, I would not use 12 because there are 2 missing signs, one between Taurus and Gemini and one between Scorpio and Sagittarius. Also when dealing with the signs they each really express 2 principles, except for Gemini which expresses 4 and Scorpio which expresses 3.

The 7th sign is really Virgo in the ancient circle and it is the principle of "raising up the entire perceptual/sensory system." The 13th sign is Aquarius which is the principle of Awareness and Insight.

This system of Astrological thought and Principles is Celtic and very much went underground in the Spiritual/Religious Wars but it was preserved and I was lucky enough to locate it...


Mikal

[Mikal]

Hi Fredrick...just wanted to comment on Pat pointing out the importance of the number 8. In the system of thought I am studying 8 is pointed out as the "Center Point" in the mind/perceptual system. It is the morphogenetic field for the entire 15 dimensions of mind that consciousness can create. "It is the connect point for all forms and beings."


Mikal

[insomniac]

Howdy Fredrick,

Sorry again... this time for the short answer.

You are making assumptions here, Jim, that are not supported by any further reasoning. Will you provide reasoning? Your words alone are not enough.

I haven't got much else to work with.

The basic assumption of systems theory is that we look at the way the parts interact, RATHER than how the parts act alone. Parts interact within a system by following laws, rules or protocols shared throughout the system.

The systems view is different from the particle (materialist) view, because it looks at the same evidence from an overview rather than close up. It is a point of view useful in spotting repeating patterns and purposeful synergies, as well as broken loops and run-a-way processes.

It is like looking at the weather from orbit or on the ground. It takes both views to get an accurate picture.

That would be a good answer if the universe worked that way. Your delivery, good as it may seem, misses one level of depth. In reality, we have separate spins (and quite a whole lot of them) that do not interact with each other.

Yet they all are in harmonic relationships, right? Look at the periodic table. Isn't there a harmonic pattern there?

To propose they do interact on a deeper level but not providing further information is like proposing god or a generator and be done with it: each of them is indeed a single word, but not a real answer.

Both words represent a concept that unifies that which you want to keep separate.

I don't know why people have such a hard time giving up on singularity. We all had two parents, we live as singles, couples, but always in groups, no one is alone in this world (of 6.5 billion people plus many more animals and plants).

All functioning together as one system, following the same rules. Once you adopt the systems view intellectually, it makes too much sense ignore. Once you experience "wholeness", emotionally you will never give up on it. When you get both going...

cheers,
jim

[Mikal]

I totally agree with you Jim...the "wholeness" experience is an emotional process just as it is a profound journey one takes....


Mikal