You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
A third condition of affairs grows out of the above two. A right apprehension of the future does not exist. When the life of the spirit is negated, when the manifesting life concentrates itself on things concrete and apparent then the true goal of existence disappears, the true incentive to right living is lost, and the sarcastic words of the initiate, Paul, "Let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die" characterize the attitude of the majority of men.
Men deaden the inner voice that bears witness to the life hereafter, and they drown the words that echo in the silence by the noise and whirl of business, pleasure and excitement.
The whole secret of success in treading the occult path depends upon attitude of mind; when the attitude is one of concrete materialism, of concentration upon form and desire for the things of the present moment, little progress can be made in apprehending the higher esoteric truth.
A fourth hindrance is found in the physical body which has been built up by the aid of meat and fermented foods and drinks, and nurtured in an environment in which fresh air and sunlight are not paramount factors. For long centuries food that has been decomposing, and hence in a condition of fermentation, has been the basic food of the occidental races; and the results can be seen in bodies unfitted for any strain such as occultism imposes, and which form a barrier to the clear shining forth of the life within. When fresh fruit and vegetables, clear water, nuts and grains, cooked and uncooked, form the sole diet of the evolving sons of men, then will be built bodies fitted to be vehicles for highly evolved Egos. They patiently await the turning of the wheel, and the coming in of a cycle which will permit of their fulfilling their destiny. The time is not yet, and the work of elimination and adjustment must be slow and tedious
Drifter I will try and clarify in regards to this trinity/triune of stability.
"Spirit" can be either:
1) physical( energy/energetic ) ergo fermions, bosons and any aggregate accumulation thereof and;
2) metaphysical( intent ) ergo abstract conceptuality of mind ergo limited free will abilities of choice.
When "spirit" is both then we have a biological/soul, to varying degrees of complexity, with *woman* being the most complex biological, known to humans.
Man comes in at close second.
The most simple biological/soul is probably a bacteria.
Some may even say that a virus is the most simple biological, however, a virus has either RNA or DNA, never both ergo it appears to be a "twilight organism" ( R.B. Fuller ), being between a animate biological/soul and inanimate mineral.
I hope this helps make *clear* that spirit and soul are not some mystical 'thing' that have no easily rational and logical definition that a 10 year old cannot begin to grasp scientifically.
"Science is the putting in order the facts of our experiences"( somebody via Fuller )
All knowledge is based in experience, whether direct experience or as comunicated by someone elses experience.
This is not to say that our experiences can be mispercieved, i.e. what we believe to be the facts are not neccesarily the facts, in all cases.
Rybo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drifter
Noumenon and phenomenon? This and That? This is within That? anyway?
First the world of spirit or the formless abstract world of subjective consciousness is not recognised in a scientific sense. It is recognised innately by those of mystic temperament, and by those who are able to study the subjective history of men and races [i.e. Joesph Campbell], but science recognises not this aspect of manifestation, nor do scientific men, as a whole, believe in the world of super-physical endeavor. All that in the earlier races held paramount place in the lives and thoughts of the people is now approached skeptically, and discussions are preceeded with a question mark. But progress has been made and much has arisen out of the war. The question, for instance, is rapidly changing from the formula "is there life ater death?" to the enquiry "Of what nature is the future life?" and this is a portent of much encouragement.
I don't need science's holy word to know what I have first hand expereinced, pertaining to the soul and/or astral body. Science simply hasn't progressed far enough along in that endeavor and when it does, decide to put in the effort, and finally verifies it for you last hold-outs and those whom you influence [with this obstinance] , it will have egg on its face and so will you.
"Spirit " can be ensouled. As man can be ensouled. One is physical and one is metaphysical.
In seperation one has an affinity for physical/ephemeral/and mortality. [and an aversion to the other]
One has an affinity for for the metaphysical/etherical/immortality. [and an aversion to the other]
I believe even the single celled omeba is constructed of molecules and elements, which have a conscious [ness] aversion or affinity to others of the same plane, and a morphing, if you will into a new substance. Similar to but different from the former on the evolutionary ladder. Two but not two.
Experiences can also be mis-believed because the observing/listening to the explanation/storyformula/diagram has no direct knowledge of what is being related too.
as i said before i have experienced it first hand, you dismiss this "fact of truth" if you wish, but it will not influence me and and what I know from the experience.
some have eyes to see and ears to hear and,
some don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rybot
Drifter I will try and clarify in regards to this trinity/triune of stability.
"Spirit" can be either:
1) physical( energy/energetic ) ergo fermions, bosons and any aggregate accumulation thereof and;
2) metaphysical( intent ) ergo abstract conceptuality of mind ergo limited free will abilities of choice.
When "spirit" is both then we have a biological/soul, to varying degrees of complexity, with *woman* being the most complex biological, known to humans.
Man comes in at close second.
The most simple biological/soul is probably a bacteria.
Some may even say that a virus is the most simple biological, however, a virus has either RNA or DNA, never both ergo it appears to be a "twilight organism" ( R.B. Fuller ), being between a animate biological/soul and inanimate mineral.
I hope this helps make *clear* that spirit and soul are not some mystical 'thing' that have no easily rational and logical definition that a 10 year old cannot begin to grasp scientifically.
"Science is the putting in order the facts of our experiences"( somebody via Fuller )
All knowledge is based in experience, whether direct experience or as comunicated by someone elses experience.
This is not to say that our experiences can be mispercieved, i.e. what we believe to be the facts are not neccesarily the facts, in all cases.
Pat, I think you misunderstand my comments. Geodesic domes are, for the most part, very much spherical.
Your three partially overlapping circles whether in 2D( quarks ) or 3D( proton ), do not define a spherical or at least not anything close to being likened to spherical.
The "closed neutron" is much closer to being likened to a spherical.You are right, Rybo, the quarks I view as flat 2D. My proton does look more like a turtle on it's back than a dome, however if you obtain 3 pipecleaners and superpose and interweave them you'll see how the proton partially closed is a geodesic dome. The totally closed neutron model the geodesic sphere.
This is a Platonic polyhedron, only it is the spherical version. These are equalateral curved triangles.
These three XYZ oriented are the same as the regular octahedron.
Your welcome and hope that you are still willing to disscuss, answer questions in regards to the "idea" and consider my ToE ideas and a couple of other web sites that have models similar to yours but still differrent.
Here is one such site, and I hope you will look at it. It is sort of hybrid cross between your "idea"and my ideas.Could you give me the site location? I'd love to view it.
Rybo
Again much thanks and I would love to view your patterns.
A photon can be viewed as a dimensionless particle (a dimensionless particle is the same as a point-like particle). However, as I said above, I believe that this is simply an approximation.
~neutralino
If you haven't found something strange during the day, it hasn't been much of a day - John A. Wheeler.
Drifter, I too believe that all fermions and bosons have some degree of conscious awareness ergo some degree of consciousness, however, there distnctioins to be made.
All the physical stuff is "spirit". A biological/soul is one such distinction that I make and at is commonly taught in all deucational formats, that i'm aware of, barring the one-to-one association with "soul" that I make.
You also appear to believe there is somthing called "ensoulment" which I understand you too mean that there was something with no soul/biological life content and then all of sudden it does.
This is where you and I differ i.e. I think the trinity/triune that I've laid out is eternally existent or at mimimum there exists eternally a gravitational, spacetime mapping for such for all spirit and biollogicals/souls to become manifest physically.
In this latter sense spirit and biological/soul equate to gravitational spacetime as being( functioning as ) the quasi-physical buffer-zone, existent at ultra-micro-scales, and between the metaphysical and the physical.
1) metaphysical macro-infinite spatiality beyond the finite physical universe but also transposes( one-to-one ) as --i.e. has subcatagory therof-- asbstract concepts of mind.
2) spirit when patterned as biological/soul with access to metaphysical mind --to varying degrees-- transposes( one-to-one ) as the quasi-physical gravitational spacetime buffer-zone between physical and metaphysical.
3) physical fermions and bosons and any aggragates thereof.
As for your comments of "facts of truth" that you experineced first hand, I don't recall exactly what it is your talking about Drifter. Sorry.
Rybo
QUOTE=Drifter;44498]"Spirit " can be ensouled. As man can be ensouled. One is physical and one is metaphysical.
In seperation one has an affinity for physical/ephemeral/and mortality. [and an aversion to the other]
One has an affinity for for the metaphysical/etherical/immortality. [and an aversion to the other]
I believe even the single celled omeba is constructed of molecules and elements, which have a conscious [ness] aversion or affinity to others of the same plane, and a morphing, if you will into a new substance. Similar to but different from the former on the evolutionary ladder. Two but not two.
Experiences can also be mis-believed because the observing/listening to the explanation/storyformula/diagram has no direct knowledge of what is being related too.
as i said before i have experienced it first hand, you dismiss this "fact of truth" if you wish, but it will not influence me and and what I know from the experience.
some have eyes to see and ears to hear and,
some don't.[/quote]
I believe it was King Solomon who wrote those words and it wasn't meant to be sarcastic. Rather after searching for the meaning of life through wealth, love, wisdom, he finally came to the conclusion that to eat, drink and be merry, is the best one can achieve. Extremely wise Solomon.
[quote=Drifter;44496]... "and the sarcastic words of the initiate, Paul, "Let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die" characterize the attitude of the majority of men."
Ecclesiastes isn't tearing down human creativity out of spite. In fact, his ultimate message is "Don't worry, be happy" -- since you can't do anything new or significant, you might as well just enjoy yourself. "There is nothing better for a man," he advises, "than that he should eat and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labour" (2: 24; compare 3: 13). And later: "a man hath no better thing under the sun, than to eat, and to drink, and to be merry" (8: 15). If you're tempted to add, "for tomorrow he dies," that part of the proverb is supplied by Isaiah (Isaiah 22: 13) in one of his merrier moods.
RY) ""Your three partially overlapping circles whether in 2D( quarks ) or 3D( proton ), do not define a spherical or at least not anything close to being likened to spherical.
The "closed neutron" is much closer to being likened to a spherical.""
PAT) You are right, Rybo, the quarks I view as flat 2D. My proton does look more like a turtle on it's back than a dome, however if you obtain 3 pipecleaners and superpose and interweave them you'll see how the proton partially closed is a geodesic dome. The totally closed neutron model the geodesic sphere.
Pat, I can see the pictures of both. I repeat, the closed system is closer to being most spherical, however, you appear to think that the angle of relationshipe between these three circles/planes doen't matter i.e. I've yet to hear or read any info in these regards to angular orientation of the three.
PAT) Thank you for this site. It was perfect. Not only showing a geodesic sphere but also in lisear square format how the 8 points make up a Star of David. I like ancient symbols like the Tao etc.
Welcom, however, these three are the spherical octahedron and they all share a common center, like your "closed" neutron, however, the octahedral three are in 90 degree oirentation to each other.
Your have no specifications that I'm aware of. I'm trying to get this info from you. Do you know what I mean Pat?
Ry) Here is one such site, and I hope you will look at it. It is sort of hybrid cross between your "idea"and my ideas.
Pat) Could you give me the site location? I'd love to view it.
Again much thanks and I would love to view your patterns.
Oops, sure PAT. I must have forgot to post the hybrid model. Let me try again.
This model is not mine. It is very similar to mine and yours.
More on mine later.
Notice how this model has at least one very distinct polyehdral shape within its whole. This the kind of info I'm trying to get from you in regards to your "open" model of three circles in some sort of 3D orientation.
Linear Mode
