The concept of "Worship"

General discussion about the Elder Race, Life, the Universe and Everything.
User avatar
Arcelius
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 517
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada

Re: The concept of "Worship"

Post by Arcelius » Sat Nov 19, 2011 5:19 pm

LoneBear wrote:I would be curious to know what is "flowing"? To use a Larson analogy, how does the cardboard of a box balance the "flow" between the inside and outside?
The nature of cardboard will allow for some things to pass through it. For example, gamma rays will pass through both sides of a cardboard box. This can be a flow since there will be points where the ray is outside the box, within the container of the box, and inside the box. It we look at air, it will eventually pass through the the cardboard as well though much more slowly. Other things like ping-pong balls will bounce off the box and never enter it.

If we look at the box and what is in it as being what is created and that which is outside of it as that which is in potentiation then what flows might be blueprints. Brahma would come up with the blueprints which contain the capability of building themselves and send them through the cardboard box. The box (Vishnu) may choose that which gets instantiated from the blueprints inside of the box and which doesn't enter. The box doesn't create any of the blueprints. It can only accept or reject that which is offered. Siva is inside the cardboard box. He will select blueprints to send back out of the box. Again, the box can retain the blueprint or it can send it back. The box can't change, create, or destroy any blueprints. Once the blueprints are inside the box, they will go through their natural cycle (i.e. they will build themselves). When blueprints are outside the box, they are just blueprints. I use the term blueprints in the sense of being a systematic design or plan and/or a set of steps to be carried out.

This concept of Brahma vs Siva reinforces your viewpoint since the outside of the box must be yin (passive) and the inside, yang.
LoneBear wrote:Learned this from Gopi... there is no positive or negative infinity, those are just directions towards the same location AT infinity. Therefore, when you approach infinity from the "positive" side, moving from zero towards it, and pass it, you're then on the negative side heading back towards zero.
This is a bit at odds with my mathematical training. Perhaps I'll need to ask Gopi about it.
LoneBear wrote:That is the pattern I was seeing in this system. Whenever the expression reaches maximum value (regardless of what the counting system is), if someone takes that one more step, they'll end up on the maximum negative value; what may have been creative becomes destructive.
This makes sense to me in more philosophical way rather than purely mathematical. One can do many things in math and some of them are actually useful :) . The map is not the territory and math is just a way of expressing things. Just because something can be expressed mathematically doesn't mean that it reflects reality.

Thanks for the description! To take this a step further, we can look at reciprocals such as when numbers become extremely small (1 / -infinity becomes zero and then through to 1 / +infinity). This would be the other side to positive infinity becomes negative infinity. In the Western world, we are trained to see zero as the middle number (i.e. if you have drawn a number line in school). These concepts would have a different middle number since zero and infinity (which isn't really a number at all) would seem to be the end-points in this continuum.

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3763
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: The concept of "Worship"

Post by LoneBear » Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:13 pm

Arcelius wrote:If we look at the box and what is in it as being what is created and that which is outside of it as that which is in potentiation then what flows might be blueprints. Brahma would come up with the blueprints which contain the capability of building themselves and send them through the cardboard box. The box (Vishnu) may choose that which gets instantiated from the blueprints inside of the box and which doesn't enter. The box doesn't create any of the blueprints. It can only accept or reject that which is offered. Siva is inside the cardboard box. He will select blueprints to send back out of the box. Again, the box can retain the blueprint or it can send it back. The box can't change, create, or destroy any blueprints. Once the blueprints are inside the box, they will go through their natural cycle (i.e. they will build themselves). When blueprints are outside the box, they are just blueprints. I use the term blueprints in the sense of being a systematic design or plan and/or a set of steps to be carried out.
So if I do some substitution here... "blueprint" = archetype, Vishnu = motion, Brahma = space, Siva = time, box = unit boundary, and voila, we have the same relations as in Larson's Reciprocal System. Space nor time cannot exist without the other aspect; Brahma nor Siva cannot exist without the other; light nor dark cannot exist without the other. To quote the Minbari, "We are Gray; we stand between the candle and the Star"--Vishnu, the unity that is divided into aspects of motion.
Arcelius wrote:This concept of Brahma vs Siva reinforces your viewpoint since the outside of the box must be yin (passive) and the inside, yang.
If you are observing from the aspect of creation (inside), then true. The archetypal observer, not within the realm of creation, will see the opposite--outside will be yang, inside will be yin.
Arcelius wrote:This is a bit at odds with my mathematical training. Perhaps I'll need to ask Gopi about it.
I understand your point of view, as I had the same one prior to my conversation with Gopi about it (where he corrected my RS2 book on my labeling of multiple infinities). All parallel lines intersect at infinity. This concept is used in projective geometry, where parallel lines are drawn as radial lines from a point marked "infinity" (called a "pencil of lines"). Multiple infinities are an illusion that we create because of the Euclidean projection we are accustomed to. We always assume parallel and orthogonal relationships at uniform scale. A little tough to wrap your mind around at first, but doable.
Arcelius wrote:This makes sense to me in more philosophical way rather than purely mathematical. One can do many things in math and some of them are actually useful :) . The map is not the territory and math is just a way of expressing things. Just because something can be expressed mathematically doesn't mean that it reflects reality.
I'm not big fan of math to represent the universe, but sometimes the relationships are close enough to draw a clear analogy. And there are times when things expressed mathematically DO reflect "reality", at least the reality we are able to comprehend.
Arcelius wrote:To take this a step further, we can look at reciprocals such as when numbers become extremely small (1 / -infinity becomes zero and then through to 1 / +infinity). This would be the other side to positive infinity becomes negative infinity. In the Western world, we are trained to see zero as the middle number (i.e. if you have drawn a number line in school). These concepts would have a different middle number since zero and infinity (which isn't really a number at all) would seem to be the end-points in this continuum.
That's the essence of Larson's Reciprocal System... the "natural datum" is unity, which gives rise to scalar motion--analogous to gods: Vishnu, Brahma and Siva. The subjective datum is zero--the point at which our consciousness interacts with this scalar realm of the gods, giving rise to the illusion of reality, as gods are only shadows here, just as archetypes are "projections" into the psyche as complexes.

That's why I like the RS so much--it provides a modern interpretation of the very basic Tao of the Universe--space, time and motion; Brahma, Siva and Vishnu; light, dark and grey... doesn't matter what you call it, it's the same pattern.

User avatar
Gopi
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 620
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:58 am
Location: Salt Lake City
Contact:

Re: The concept of "Worship"

Post by Gopi » Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:24 pm

Arcelius wrote:
LoneBear wrote:Learned this from Gopi... there is no positive or negative infinity, those are just directions towards the same location AT infinity. Therefore, when you approach infinity from the "positive" side, moving from zero towards it, and pass it, you're then on the negative side heading back towards zero.
This is a bit at odds with my mathematical training. Perhaps I'll need to ask Gopi about it.
Actually it is best to understand this using a visual given by George Adams... consider two lines in a plane. Consider them intersecting at a particular point. Now choose one of the lines, and choose a point on it other than the point of intersection, and now rotate that line about that point.

You'll see that the point of intersection with the other line moves away farther and farther, and at the instant the lines are parallel the point goes to infinity, and as you rotate it further... swoosh, the point of intersection zips in again, from the OPPOSITE side. And the intersection would go in this cycle as you rotate it... nearby point->positive infinity->negative infinity-> nearby point. That is how the positive infinity and the negative both end up being the same point. You have proved the same idea using the inverse:
Arcelius wrote:To take this a step further, we can look at reciprocals such as when numbers become extremely small (1 / -infinity becomes zero and then through to 1 / +infinity). This would be the other side to positive infinity becomes negative infinity. In the Western world, we are trained to see zero as the middle number (i.e. if you have drawn a number line in school). These concepts would have a different middle number since zero and infinity (which isn't really a number at all) would seem to be the end-points in this continuum.
Positive and negative infinity both tend to zero as you invert them. So yes, zero is not the "mid point", but an endpoint, like infinity, which is why you often have 0, 1, inf as the sequence in RS.
It is time.

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3763
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: The concept of "Worship"

Post by LoneBear » Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:17 pm

Gopi wrote:Positive and negative infinity both tend to zero as you invert them. So yes, zero is not the "mid point", but an endpoint, like infinity, which is why you often have 0, 1, inf as the sequence in RS.
What if zero and infinity are constructs of MAN, not of Nature, and they don't really exist except in the mind of man?

If one accepts Larson's natural datum to be unity, the speed of light, then you can count up from unity, n/1 (towards infinity), or down from unity, 1/n (towards zero), but never actually reach either location, as there is no number large enough to do the job in either direction.

I was thinking of the discussion between Nehru and myself on primary and secondary motions. Primary motion ran from zero to infinity (a linear length, or polar turn), whereas secondary motion ran from zero to one (vibration or rotation). Why would 0-1 be the preferred direction for secondary motion? 1-infinity would seem equally as valid, though a bit harder to conceive. Which makes me thing that there is a component missing--perhaps another dimension.

User avatar
cointreau
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 1:41 pm
Location: Venezuela
Contact:

School as a religion

Post by cointreau » Mon Dec 19, 2011 11:04 pm

I believe this excerpt from J.T. Gatto's book "The underground history of American education" fits nicely in this string of discussion because it masterfully concatenates the concept of schools, worship, and the resulting infantilization of most modern US Americans:
--------------------------------------------------------------------

School As Religion


Nothing about school is what it seems, not even boredom. To show you what I mean is the burden of this long essay. My book represents a try at arranging my own thoughts in order to figure out what fifty years of classroom confinement (as student and teacher) add up to for me. You’ll encounter a great deal of speculative history here. This is a personal investigation of why school is a dangerous place. It’s not so much that anyone there sets out to hurt children; more that all of us associated with the institution are stuck like flies in the same great web your kids are. We buzz frantically to cover our own panic but have little power to help smaller flies.

Looking backward on a thirty-year teaching career full of rewards and prizes, somehow I can’t completely believe that I spent my time on earth institutionalized; I can’t believe that centralized schooling is allowed to exist at all as a gigantic indoctrination and sorting machine, robbing people of their children. Did it really happen? Was this my life? God help me.

School is a religion. Without understanding the holy mission aspect you’re certain to misperceive what takes place as a result of human stupidity or venality or even class warfare. All are present in the equation, it’s just that none of these matter very much—even without them school would move in the same direction. Dewey’s Pedagogic Creed statement of 1897 gives you a clue to the zeitgeist:

"Every teacher should realize he is a social servant set apart for the maintenance of the proper social order and the securing of the right social growth. In this way the teacher is always the prophet of the true God and the usherer in of the true kingdom of heaven."

What is "proper" social order? What does "right" social growth look like? If you don’t know you’re like me, not like John Dewey who did, or the Rockefellers, his patrons, who did, too.

Somehow out of the industrial confusion which followed the Civil War, powerful men and dreamers became certain what kind of social order America needed, one very like the British system we had escaped a hundred years earlier. This realization didn’t arise as a product of public debate as it should have in a democracy, but as a distillation of private discussion. Their ideas contradicted the original American charter but that didn’t disturb them. They had a stupendous goal in mind—the rationalization of everything. The end of unpredictable history; its transformation into dependable order.

From mid-century onwards certain utopian schemes to retard maturity in the interests of a greater good were put into play, following roughly the blueprint Rousseau laid down in the book Emile. At least rhetorically. The first goal, to be reached in stages, was an orderly, scientifically managed society, one in which the best people would make the decisions, unhampered by democratic tradition. After that, human breeding, the evolutionary destiny of the species, would be in reach. Universal institutionalized formal forced schooling was the prescription, extending the dependency of the young well into what had traditionally been early adult life. Individuals would be prevented from taking up important work until a relatively advanced age. Maturity was to be retarded.

During the post-Civil War period, childhood was extended about four years. Later, a special label was created to describe very old children. It was called adolescence, a phenomenon hitherto unknown to the human race. The infantilization of young people didn’t stop at the beginning of the twentieth century; child labor laws were extended to cover more and more kinds of work, the age of school leaving set higher and higher. The greatest victory for this utopian project was making school the only avenue to certain occupations. The intention was ultimately to draw all work into the school net. By the 1950s it wasn’t unusual to find graduate students well into their thirties, running errands, waiting to start their lives.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those fascinated with the topic of education (such as myself), this book is a must. Here is the link to the rest of it: http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.htm

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3763
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: The concept of "Worship"

Post by LoneBear » Tue Dec 20, 2011 9:06 pm

I would agree with the assessment that "schooling" does have a doctrine; it is no longer about education but simply training into a social order. But from what I've seen, the upcoming generations ARE fully indoctrinated and don't want any change. They complain a lot about those "in power" but when it comes their turn to run the world, will we actually be any better off? Or much worse?

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3763
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: The concept of "Worship"

Post by LoneBear » Tue Jan 10, 2012 11:33 pm

During my research into bioenergy and the after-life transition process, I have found that "worship" plays an important role.

Under normal circumstances, a person uses meditation or prayer (basically the same thing) in order to build Qi. Qi converts to Shen when a different form of meditation takes place--which I label "introspection." I normal meditation usually concerns suppressing the conscious mind to interact with the wider Universe, which is quite effective to build Qi. In introspective meditation, you do the opposite--you focus the conscious mind to a high degree and it is that focus that creates the demand for Shen and initiates the conversion process.

Worship is actually a type of extroverted meditation, where a similar focus of the conscious mind is used to initiate the Qi-to-Shen conversion process, but the generated Shen is transmitted to the object of worship. This works for physical objects as well as people. For example, the Keris. For Harry Potter fans, the horcrux.

Shen differs from Qi in one, very important aspect: Qi is intelligent (what Ra refers to as "intelligent energy"). Shen is conscious energy. This concept was played upon by the Vorlons in Babylon 5, where Kosh could break off a piece of his consciousness, place it in Lyta Alexander, and literally go out and experience things with her.

People will actually invest may of their personal objects with Shen, without ever realizing it. Anything you tend to "love" becomes an object of worship, and hence a transfer of Shen takes place. That signature can last in an object for centuries. People that are sensitive to bioenergy can pick up such a charged object and get information about the owner, because the consciousness of that energy contains an imprint of the worshiper's personality.

I find it interesting to discover this aspect of worship. Religious folk worship "God." But God has no name--there is literally no focus to the worship, except an abstract concept. I believe that is why transcendent symbols were always important to religion--anyone standing in the path of your worship from self to God, ends intercepting the Shen. That includes man, angels, demons or any other entity in the line of transcendence. No wonder it is so popular.

There appears to be a lot more to prayer and worship than meets the eye.

User avatar
Arcelius
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 517
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada

Re: The concept of "Worship"

Post by Arcelius » Sat Jan 21, 2012 10:29 am

LoneBear wrote:I would agree with the assessment that "schooling" does have a doctrine; it is no longer about education but simply training into a social order. But from what I've seen, the upcoming generations ARE fully indoctrinated and don't want any change. They complain a lot about those "in power" but when it comes their turn to run the world, will we actually be any better off? Or much worse?
I too would agree that schooling has a doctrine associated with it. I don't think that it originated in Prussia though. I think it was piloted there in more modern times and was very successful (according to the schooling religious values).

In general, the up and coming generation may be fully indoctrinated and yet there are still many exceptions. The "Stockholm Syndrone" is very real though. If there is an awakening, there will likely be a severe backlash. Either way, I doubt that most of that generation will run anything much less the world.

User avatar
Arcelius
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 517
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada

Re: The concept of "Worship"

Post by Arcelius » Sat Jan 21, 2012 10:52 am

LoneBear wrote:There appears to be a lot more to prayer and worship than meets the eye.
I look at the mass media to see the objects of prayer and worship. I think vampires and "super-heroes" are close to the top of the list. I find that rather disturbing. Most of the super-heroes that I have recently seen movies about have their powers forced upon them from the outside. Though some of them show that a certain amount of training is necessary in order to manage their powers, this is usually glossed over and time-lines are usually greatly reduced (typical for movies and television).

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3763
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: The concept of "Worship"

Post by LoneBear » Sat Jan 21, 2012 5:04 pm

Arcelius wrote:I think vampires and "super-heroes" are close to the top of the list. I find that rather disturbing. Most of the super-heroes that I have recently seen movies about have their powers forced upon them from the outside. Though some of them show that a certain amount of training is necessary in order to manage their powers, this is usually glossed over and time-lines are usually greatly reduced (typical for movies and television).
I concur; superheros have changed quite a bit since I was a kid. They usually worked alone or with a sidekick, had a high degree of ethical consciousness, and their superpowers were innate. Superman's powers came from being a native of Krypton; Batman from his own intelligence; Mr. Terrific from his power pills (that he invented).

I'm also concerned with the vampire thing. Symbolically, that is someone who lives off the life (work) of others, providing no contribution, themselves. The ultimate condition of the welfare state. Not a good role model. Eventually, they will kill off everyone who had a life and go after each other until there is nothing left. Sort of like the US economy is, right now.

Bit spooky to see our "civilized" society to become a bunch of wraith worshipers.

User avatar
Gopi
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 620
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:58 am
Location: Salt Lake City
Contact:

Re: The concept of "Worship"

Post by Gopi » Sat Jan 21, 2012 9:55 pm

Arcelius wrote:I think vampires and "super-heroes" are close to the top of the list.
When it comes to worship in the sense of daily life, I have noticed a different structure... there is an increasing number of tribal gods being worshiped via commercial sports, a type of animal worship (renamed mascots). Another majority goes with the god of hedonism, Bacchus/Dionysus. The primary means of prayer is to passionately support every activity that is backed by "fun". Vampires and superheroes fascinate people, but I think that has still not percolated daily conscious activity... thankfully.

Many of the superheroes take upon the role of Jesus, as Savior. Because they get people out of the mess they are in, selflessly... so I think the moment the idea of Christ started getting misused by Bible-beaters, out of an inherent necessity the same concept seems to crop up in comic books.
It is time.

User avatar
Raytrek
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:44 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: The concept of "Worship"

Post by Raytrek » Tue Feb 07, 2012 8:29 pm

I tend to believe that reverence is a by-product of the imagination but imagination is the best intellectual gift mankind has. Since pre-history, before science and philosophy we had story tellers, perhaps these are even what inspired philosophy and later science.

For the most part, life can be boring and for those who are fortunate enough to see some action it becomes an obligation for them to share such adventures. Of course the truth of the matter is probably much more boring than the audience would like so this affords the teller creative rights of embelishment.

This created the hero reverence, which became hero worship. Then heroes became gods and the result is religion. That is how I see it, all a product of the imagination that has spawned all these offshoots: heroes, gods, metaphysics, adventures, philosophies, science, ethical conduct all sourced from the imaginative minds of ancient story tellers.

Post Reply