|
Post by waechter418 on Sept 27, 2019 13:28:38 GMT
The following is based on the supposition that unity comprises multiplicity in order to realize itself. The interaction of unity and multiplicity is called ConsciousNess and regarded as an inter-extrapolation that relates in a viewpoint which manifests ConsciousNess.* * (The particular spelling is to emphasize the relativity of Conscious: purposeful, aware – and Ness: being, existence) In 2750, an Egyptian priest of Ptah paraphrased it like this: “The seeing of the eyes, the hearing of the ears and the breathing of the nose report to the mind; the mind is the centre of cognition, the tongue expresses the cognized” – and since this cognition consists of a reflection & projection, the priest added – “thus gods are made”. The Egyptians called the cognition Hoor Paar Kraat (Horus the Child) and its Reflection & Projection Isis & Osiris. This relativity, or state of ConsciousNess, did apparently not suffice, as they reflected & projected Isis & Osiris with Nephtys & Seth, setting off a contrary Reflection/Projection (R/P) dynamic, wherein Horus became the arbiter of its pole positions – or field limits – and thus an intermediate viewpoint. Cultures subjected to this contrary R/P dynamic, called it a war of gods. In the Egyptian version, Seth divided Osiris and claimed his throne – or pole position – which put him into opposition to Horus, who joined (wed) his “mother” Isis. With the son of this marriage the entire process repeated itself – that is: the contrary R/P field and its intermediate viewpoint were doubled and turned into an eight-pole R/P dynamic which filled the Egyptian pantheon with numerous Horus (& Osiris) variants. The history of Egyptian ConsciousNess (or religion) demonstrates, that it was henceforth governed by attempts to restrain this division-multiplication process through a 9th pole (or god) –which might have been the first monopolistic (or monotheistic) attempt to transform the intermediate into an absolute viewpoint – in order to fix the pole positions and thus inhibit the creation of additional R/P fields and viewpoints. It is not known if the priests realized that thereby they fixed the contraries too, or if they feared losing their prosperous pantheon-managements, when they exiled this so called “Aton” to (or with) the Israeli tribes, whom he henceforth ruled under the term JHVH. And it was the son (Jesus) of this (four-poled) contrary R/P field, whose (cross-shaped) coordinate got established in the Hellenic time/space, where it became a principal pattern for the formation of the Occident. The R/P patterns of the Egyptians and the ancient Greeks were similar, except that the Greeks established four intermediary viewpoints and thus a contrary field within contrary fields, which brought about a R/P mode that was to become renown as rationalism (after the Latin ratio = calculation) and to give birth to the philosophers and geometricians who separated the fields and assigned one to psyche and one to soma (mind & matter), turning them into the cornerstones of a polarisation-dynamic that was going to shape – with the help of religion and science – the occidental cultures. In 1904 appeared LIBER AL VEL LEGIS. LAL reveals that when Dualisms reach their (linear) limits, a (non-linear) inter/extrapolation takes place which forms the selfcomplementary R/P relativity of Selfconsciousness. The Inter/Extrapolation of its R/P-equations (for convenience sake numbered 2-8, 3-7, 4-6) is envisioned spherical and depicted as the following: The R/P poles interrelate in 3 phases: 4~6 cognition 3~7 understanding and 2~8 (Self) knowledge - 5 marks the Point of View, O the circumference and 1-1 (LAL eleven) the R/P equation of SelfConsciousNess. In LAL it is called a star, embodying a microcosm which relates a macrocosm. Macrocosm is the inter/extrapolation-sphere of stars, or microcosms. The force of their inter/extrapolation is Love under Will.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 12, 2019 22:04:08 GMT
1. Define Occident again as it is a variation of "accident". 2. It appears, the Egyptians where anthropomizing universal principles for the masses while simultaneously arguing consciousness stems from universal self referencing laws that are not limited to an anthropomorphic nature alone. 3. Agreed: division and multiplication occur simultaneously, the individuation of a point is a paradox. If one point Inverts to two points it automatically divides and multiplies at the same time, thus all whole numbers and fractions/fractals are isomorphisms of the other. The point is the beginning of observation as that which is intrinsically empty and formless thus "assumes" or is imprinted by images. Emptiness of mind or blank slate is synonymous. Object assumed, in turn is a simultaneous point of awareness thus as "assumed" it is imprinted by the images assumed by the point of awareness. Example: I assume a piece of clay. In assuming it, I filter it through the assumptions of a form (statue). Thus in accepting the clay and I give form to it into a statue where the clay is formed by me. The convergence of the empty mind and the relatively formless clay, negate eachother leaving the statue as the morphing of two points of reality much in the same manner two points negate themselves into a line. 4. Ra-Hoor-Khu, as an anthropormization of negation (destruction), appears as a reflection of "Set" which also is an anthropormization of the principle of negation (destruction). Elaborate further. ***The Dualism Of Dualisms Necessitates Negation (Destruction) As Having A Quadratic Nature. Agree/disagree/maybe to the above? P.S: i do not speculate about empties but about manifestations of ConsciousNess (The particular spelling is to emphasize the relativity of Conscious: purposeful, aware – and Ness: being, existence)Then are researchs are pointing to Egypt then, most likely a preegyption philosophy adopted by egyptains. We are on a similar page then...
|
|
|
Post by waechter418 on Oct 15, 2019 20:57:58 GMT
Thank you for pointing out the relationship of Set & Ra-Hoor-Khu - it completely escaped me, although latter is quite dominant in this work. Its initiator was Liber Al vel Legis, but (nearly) all cosmologies would have served, as they present principal patterns of human consciousness.
The R/P pole constellations and their viewpoints appeared in the course of exploring the dynamics of triangles, squares and cubes.
I don`t consider the Occident i.e. western hemisphere to be accidental although many of its parameters and frameworks appear as be such.
|
|
|
Post by waechter418 on Oct 21, 2019 14:49:44 GMT
8 Order arises from Will & Love – disorders take place where this strong force of ConsciousNess is lacking.
There are no by chance orders. There are the manifestations of the alternating and of the contrary R/P modes and the - in time & space scattered- manifestations of Dualism (which sometimes do seem to relate to each other by chance). And then there is the Point of View of the R/P equation, the unknown factor of its manifestations, which cannot be known, i.e. reflected/projected, without fracturing their order.
Disorder is a discontinuity-field, or –phase, which disappears as soon as its components are transferred to, or absorbed by a unity. 9 Unity comprises multiplicity and a corresponding number of possibilities to realize itself. When the possibilities are differentiated, multiplicity is established.
Unity cannot be measured, but only cognized and understood. The unities of measurements are half-measures that can be added up and concealed with unity-terms, but such Selfrealisation-attempts are self-deceptions as they veil the quintessence of unity and thus of SelfConsciousNess.
The dimension of unity can neither be related nor located – but only be experienced.
Dimensions that can be related, are division/multiplication abstructs. They may serve to focus on unity, but cannot effect it, since its time/space is not extended – wherefore unity disappears when manipulated.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 21, 2019 18:48:28 GMT
The following is based on the supposition that unity comprises multiplicity in order to realize itself. The interaction of unity and multiplicity is called ConsciousNess and regarded as an inter-extrapolation that relates in a viewpoint which manifests ConsciousNess.* * (The particular spelling is to emphasize the relativity of Conscious: purposeful, aware – and Ness: being, existence) In 2750, an Egyptian priest of Ptah paraphrased it like this: “The seeing of the eyes, the hearing of the ears and the breathing of the nose report to the mind; the mind is the centre of cognition, the tongue expresses the cognized” – and since this cognition consists of a reflection & projection, the priest added – “thus gods are made”. The Egyptians called the cognition Hoor Paar Kraat (Horus the Child) and its Reflection & Projection Isis & Osiris. This relativity, or state of ConsciousNess, did apparently not suffice, as they reflected & projected Isis & Osiris with Nephtys & Seth, setting off a contrary Reflection/Projection (R/P) dynamic, wherein Horus became the arbiter of its pole positions – or field limits – and thus an intermediate viewpoint. Cultures subjected to this contrary R/P dynamic, called it a war of gods. In the Egyptian version, Seth divided Osiris and claimed his throne – or pole position – which put him into opposition to Horus, who joined (wed) his “mother” Isis. With the son of this marriage the entire process repeated itself – that is: the contrary R/P field and its intermediate viewpoint were doubled and turned into an eight-pole R/P dynamic which filled the Egyptian pantheon with numerous Horus (& Osiris) variants. The history of Egyptian ConsciousNess (or religion) demonstrates, that it was henceforth governed by attempts to restrain this division-multiplication process through a 9th pole (or god) –which might have been the first monopolistic (or monotheistic) attempt to transform the intermediate into an absolute viewpoint – in order to fix the pole positions and thus inhibit the creation of additional R/P fields and viewpoints. It is not known if the priests realized that thereby they fixed the contraries too, or if they feared losing their prosperous pantheon-managements, when they exiled this so called “Aton” to (or with) the Israeli tribes, whom he henceforth ruled under the term JHVH. And it was the son (Jesus) of this (four-poled) contrary R/P field, whose (cross-shaped) coordinate got established in the Hellenic time/space, where it became a principal pattern for the formation of the Occident. The R/P patterns of the Egyptians and the ancient Greeks were similar, except that the Greeks established four intermediary viewpoints and thus a contrary field within contrary fields, which brought about a R/P mode that was to become renown as rationalism (after the Latin ratio = calculation) and to give birth to the philosophers and geometricians who separated the fields and assigned one to psyche and one to soma (mind & matter), turning them into the cornerstones of a polarisation-dynamic that was going to shape – with the help of religion and science – the occidental cultures. In 1904 appeared LIBER AL VEL LEGIS. LAL reveals that when Dualisms reach their (linear) limits, a (non-linear) inter/extrapolation takes place which forms the selfcomplementary R/P relativity of Selfconsciousness. The Inter/Extrapolation of its R/P-equations (for convenience sake numbered 2-8, 3-7, 4-6) is envisioned spherical and depicted as the following: The R/P poles interrelate in 3 phases: 4~6 cognition 3~7 understanding and 2~8 (Self) knowledge - 5 marks the Point of View, O the circumference and 1-1 (LAL eleven) the R/P equation of SelfConsciousNess. 1. 5 is assumption as point of view is empty and formless. This can be subconsciousness.
2. 4-6 is the assumption of assumption, where the point of view as assuming itself becomes aware through form. Formlessness voids itself into form; ie consciousness.
3. 3 to 7 is the assumption of these forms as understanding, where understandjng is the relation of forms, these forms invert through the subconsciousness into many forms we are cognizant of (projecting). Thus understanding is interrelated projections through which we project
4. 2 to 8 is the embodiment and intertwining of the above as the self.
5. 1 is the objective nature of the self intrinsically as a law.
More or less? In LAL it is called a star, embodying a microcosm which relates a macrocosm. Macrocosm is the inter/extrapolation-sphere of stars, or microcosms. The force of their inter/extrapolation is Love under Will.
|
|
|
Post by waechter418 on Oct 23, 2019 3:10:18 GMT
more....(please)
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 23, 2019 4:10:53 GMT
more....(please) Best to post something new, provide questions or just bring up a topic.
|
|
|
Post by waechter418 on Nov 17, 2019 14:34:02 GMT
One cannot change oneself – but one can realize oneself.
The notion of changing oneself is self-denial and most common in Dualism, because of its presumption, that the viewpoints which relate its manifestations, are having different time/space positions. A misconception that leads – due to the counter-dynamics of the (dualistic) R/P fields – to the assumption that one could be different than one is, and that one state of existence is imperfect and another better – or at least: more advantageous.
There are more perverse ways of self-denial, like the Judaic/Christian concept of Homo being the crown of a creation whose aim it is, that he subjugates its manifestations – and thus himself.
Another currently popular self-denial is the Occidental evolution- and selection dogma; despite that it should lead, according to its own logic, to the realization that every man & woman is what he/she projects/reflects and that therefore no one can be elevated or put down, improve, worsen or otherwise be changed.
The in every R/P system common (because most simple) manner of self-denial, is the causality concept, according to which a manifestation is either the cause, or the effect of another manifestation. A notion that not only undermines the self-response-ability of Homo, but makes him to a victim as well, even more so, when he tries to find causes for his existence and begins to reason it – and thus himself.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Nov 17, 2019 17:02:34 GMT
Since Anaxagoras introduced the idea of a universal (cosmic) mind in ancient Greek philosophy, various implications have been made explicit, so that, for example, the American Ernest Holmes identifies the universal mind with Consciousness and with God. Aristotle reflected on the personal mind of humans and saw that at last one distinction must be made: We have the passive/receptive mind/intellect/Understanding and the active/agent mind/intellect [Nous Poietikos], which can be generalized as he "Creative" (fashioning) mind in various senses of the term. Presently, this fashioning power in man is practically identified with the force that drives biological development and/or evolution. For me, the mind is a function of the (biological) brain, an effect, rather than the cause of the brain. So, if we are to talk about a cosmic mind (if there is such a thing) or consciousness, I would not attribute creative (determining) power to it. Here we are at the same juncture where theists see God as distinct from and anterior to the world. (All cosmologists, arise and cast your own light on these issues.) The very notion of creativity or power is at stake here; it is incomprehensible, if it is attributed to anything non-physical. On the other hand, we should start considering physical forces or energies, such as the telluric electric currents, which scientists have discovered and even utilized is some small degrees or we use for "grounding" in connection with some appliances. Probably such currents are necessary for brains to be activated and function, and they may be necessary for the remission of some diseases. Much remains to be explored!!!
|
|