The Essential Nature of the Human Being

General discussion about the Elder Race, Life, the Universe and Everything.
Post Reply
User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 4079
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

The Essential Nature of the Human Being

Post by LoneBear » Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:30 pm

I've been reviewing Theosophy lately, and ran across this interesting quote from Goethe on the nature of the human being...
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe wrote:As soon as we become aware of the objects around us, we start to consider them in relationship to ourselves, and rightly so, because our fate depends entirely on whether they please or displease, attract or repel, help or harm us. This very natural way of looking at and assessing things appears to be as easy as it is necessary, yet it exposes us to thousands of errors that often put us to shame and make our lives miserable.

We undertake a much harder tasks when, in our keen desire for knowledge, we strive to observe natural objects in and for themselves and in their relationship to one another, for we soon feel the lack of the standard of liking and disliking, attraction and repulsion, usefulness and harmfulness, that came to our aid when we were considering objects in relationship to our human selves. We are forced to renounce this standard totally and, as dispassionate and quasi-divine beings, to seek out and examine what is, and not what pleases us. This means that neither the beauty nor the usefulness of any plant should move true botanists, who rather should study its morphology and its relationships to the rest of the plant kingdom. Just as the sun shines equally on all plants and entices them forth, so too should botanists observe and survey them all impartially and take the data and standards for their assessment, not from the human domain, but from the domain of things under observation.
I find it an interesting contrast to the "Celestine Prophecy" system where people seek out beauty in Nature to find their path. Goethe appears to be suggesting that the spiritual path is not highlighted; it is found by using the intellect to locate it. In Latin, Animus = Spirit = Intellect.

User avatar
polonious21
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:31 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: The Essential Nature of the Human Being

Post by polonious21 » Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:46 pm

I'm not sure this directly applies but in Taoism, they believe once you name something or categorize it you limit its potential. Because language is limited and the human mind is limited we naturally put limits on other things, people, etc. So scientifically catagorizing plants, nature, or whatever could be actually limiting our ability to see its connection to the larger picture, its spiritual significance. In which case "knowledge" inhibits spirituality.
To love is Divine

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 4079
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: The Essential Nature of the Human Being

Post by LoneBear » Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:23 pm

polonious21 wrote:I'm not sure this directly applies but in Taoism, they believe once you name something or categorize it you limit its potential. Because language is limited and the human mind is limited we naturally put limits on other things, people, etc. So scientifically catagorizing plants, nature, or whatever could be actually limiting our ability to see its connection to the larger picture, its spiritual significance. In which case "knowledge" inhibits spirituality.
In most theologies that I've studied, the act of naming something is a way to claim it for yourself; to make its properties your own (does not limit potential or actualization). The story of Rumpelstiltskin is the classic example, and why God is "He whom cannot be named".

Even in the Ra Material / Law of One, to know someone's "vibratory sound complex" is to know them totally, since that complex is their song of being. Higher level negative entities will seldom give their name, because it would give you knowledge and power over them. Positive entities usually give their name right up front, because they have nothing to hide.

Having done further reading, it appears that Goethe's approach to naming was to know something sufficiently to be ABLE to name it, and hence comprehend it. In many cases, the name is refined as it is better understood, similar to tuning an instrument.

User avatar
zenmaster
Cellarius
Cellarius
Posts: 339
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 1:47 am

Re: The Essential Nature of the Human Being

Post by zenmaster » Thu Jul 10, 2008 7:16 pm

Well there's identification for the sake of ad-hoc utility, and there's always 'pathological' forms of psychological identification. I'd argue that anything outside of a nondual or acausal view necessarily involves identification (whether that id is from naming or ordering).

In order to determine anything, that is to evaluate (i.e Jung's thinking or feeling), we must see causal relationships. And in order to establish causal relations, we must impose such (ultimately fallible) limits.

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 4079
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: The Essential Nature of the Human Being

Post by LoneBear » Sat Jul 12, 2008 2:41 pm

zenmaster wrote:In order to determine anything, that is to evaluate (i.e Jung's thinking or feeling), we must see causal relationships. And in order to establish causal relations, we must impose such (ultimately fallible) limits.
That is interesting, because it makes "clock time" and "causality" to be different concepts. In the equations of motion, clock time is just a scale factor to adjust space to compensate for temporal density, basically cardinal in nature. But "time" in the equations does not account for causality--only velocity.

Any ideas on the ordinal component to "clock time", the causal one?

User avatar
zenmaster
Cellarius
Cellarius
Posts: 339
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 1:47 am

Re: The Essential Nature of the Human Being

Post by zenmaster » Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:51 pm

LoneBear wrote:But "time" in the equations does not account for causality--only velocity.
If motion is nothing but space and time, then how can time not account for causality?

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 4079
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: The Essential Nature of the Human Being

Post by LoneBear » Mon Jul 14, 2008 12:42 pm

zenmaster wrote:
LoneBear wrote:But "time" in the equations does not account for causality--only velocity.
If motion is nothing but space and time, then how can time not account for causality?
I'm finding that the word "time" is a lot like "love" -- many different meanings attached to it, and most are subjective. There is time as an aspect of scalar motion, time as a measure of coordinate distance in the cosmic sector, time as a scaling factor (in force relations), time as a rate of change, time as a causal relationship... time as periodicity, time as linearity... and they are all mixed together in equations!

One of the definitions for "time" is that causal relationship that allows consciousness to create an ordinal sequence for spatial relationships. Larson uses "time" in its cardinal mode, as a discrete magnitude, but does not define how the ordinal aspect of causality works.

User avatar
zenmaster
Cellarius
Cellarius
Posts: 339
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 1:47 am

Re: The Essential Nature of the Human Being

Post by zenmaster » Mon Jul 14, 2008 6:39 pm

LoneBear wrote:
zenmaster wrote:
LoneBear wrote:But "time" in the equations does not account for causality--only velocity.
If motion is nothing but space and time, then how can time not account for causality?
I'm finding that the word "time" is a lot like "love" -- many different meanings attached to it, and most are subjective. There is time as an aspect of scalar motion, time as a measure of coordinate distance in the cosmic sector, time as a scaling factor (in force relations), time as a rate of change, time as a causal relationship... time as periodicity, time as linearity... and they are all mixed together in equations!

One of the definitions for "time" is that causal relationship that allows consciousness to create an ordinal sequence for spatial relationships. Larson uses "time" in its cardinal mode, as a discrete magnitude, but does not define how the ordinal aspect of causality works.
It's my understanding that Larson implicitly defined this 'ordinal' aspect in the types of motions that he felt were possible. This is essentially creating a "background". Using these types of motions, he redefined what "physical universe" means (by finding a more primary way of expressing causality.)

My observation was that Larson, with his system of motions, was actually mapping the inherently psychological attributes of space and time to a necessarily reduced set of 'primary existents'.

Remember that space and time are actually the same thing - one thing. So the separation or distinction is, primarily, a psychological activity. Where one "draws the line" is where causality starts. And the set of motions he used were quite arbitrary - I think they were intended to coincide with what our measuring devices indicated for photon detection (= their behavior), for example.

User avatar
Gopi
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 629
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:58 am
Location: Salt Lake City
Contact:

Re: The Essential Nature of the Human Being

Post by Gopi » Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:44 pm

So I suppose these are the concepts which are to be clarified, or at least assimilated better than what we know now...

Love
Time
Beauty
Colour

All of them have multiple meanings, and also imply a lot more as a concept. And they have a reality of their own, akin to the reality of a dream as compared to the reality of "normal" life... or if I attempt a physics description, they may be complex numbers, as opposed to the reality of real numbers.
It is time.

User avatar
BlueEagle
Centurio
Centurio
Posts: 228
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 7:33 pm
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: The Essential Nature of the Human Being

Post by BlueEagle » Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:24 pm

LoneBear wrote:Any ideas on the ordinal component to "clock time", the causal one?
What do you mean? What are you looking for? I am trying to think but I don't know how to think about it.

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 4079
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: The Essential Nature of the Human Being

Post by LoneBear » Thu Jul 17, 2008 5:40 pm

BlueEagle wrote:
LoneBear wrote:Any ideas on the ordinal component to "clock time", the causal one?
What do you mean? What are you looking for? I am trying to think but I don't know how to think about it.
One of the discoveries I made over last winter was that "motion" can be defined using a complex quantity, a real+imaginary number, which closely resembles the Tao, in the respect that the two generative principles, yang and yin, are represented--yang as linear (masculine) and yin as polar (feminine). When space is yang and time is yin, you have conventional matter and physical relationships. When time is yang and space is yin, you get the metaphysical realm--antimatter.

That gave rise to the fact that there are TWO kinds of "time", a yang version (ordinal--ordered, as in "causality") and a yin version (cardinal--magnitude, as in a rate of change).

What I am trying to figure out is how to separate the causal relations of time from the rates or periodicity of time. They are both called 'time' and are mixed together in conventional science, but behave differently. In projective geometry, "clock time" is typically just a scale factor to space--more time, less space. But only for a static snapshot... when you start working with animated sequences, "clock time" becomes ordinal and creates the cause-and-effect we as a progression of spatial changes.

I'm looking for a way to find a hard distinction between the two, and rules on which one applies where.

You can watch the RS2 Lectures (click for link) I gave in Utah over the winter, which describe a lot of the concepts in detail. (About 10 hours long; Quicktime player needed).

Alluvion
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 12:37 pm

Re: The Essential Nature of the Human Being

Post by Alluvion » Thu Jul 17, 2008 7:36 pm

It might help us all if we actually compiled an Antiquatis lexicon - drop a word like 'time' here and its pretty much impossible, even with extended explanation, to find everyone totally in sync with the meaning (and the value).

Sound..important?

User avatar
polonious21
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:31 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: The Essential Nature of the Human Being

Post by polonious21 » Sun Jul 20, 2008 10:42 pm

Agreed. That would save a lot of time we spend defining things and re-stating what we mean.
To love is Divine

User avatar
zenmaster
Cellarius
Cellarius
Posts: 339
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 1:47 am

Re: The Essential Nature of the Human Being

Post by zenmaster » Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:36 am

Alluvion wrote:It might help us all if we actually compiled an Antiquatis lexicon - drop a word like 'time' here and its pretty much impossible, even with extended explanation, to find everyone totally in sync with the meaning (and the value).

Sound..important?
Good idea. We do not understand the essential nature of many things like 'time'. So depending on context and historical usage, we use the word to point towards what we think we want to convey. For words like 'time', there would be multiple definitions that up to now, only hint at a true or underlying meaning. Here are more: 'space', 'mind', and 'love'. Similarly, we really don't know what 'gravity' or 'emotion' are - we merely describe an effect. There still exist 'hidden variables', and connections to principles we do not yet (or can not yet) appreciate directly.

Attempting to define these terms should elicit what we think we know (which is not much). It is as if we still have our plates full with the superficial versions and so are not ready for more.

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 4079
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: The Essential Nature of the Human Being

Post by LoneBear » Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:49 am

I'm planning to upgrade the software on the main site, and I was thinking of making provisions for an Antiquatis Liber Umbrae... sort of an Ancient "Book of Shadows" that defined things and concepts. I'll see what I can come up with.

User avatar
BlueEagle
Centurio
Centurio
Posts: 228
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 7:33 pm
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: The Essential Nature of the Human Being

Post by BlueEagle » Mon Jul 21, 2008 1:20 pm

LoneBear wrote:That gave rise to the fact that there are TWO kinds of "time", a yang version (ordinal--ordered, as in "causality") and a yin version (cardinal--magnitude, as in a rate of change).

What I am trying to figure out is how to separate the causal relations of time from the rates or periodicity of time. They are both called 'time' and are mixed together in conventional science, but behave differently. In projective geometry, "clock time" is typically just a scale factor to space--more time, less space. But only for a static snapshot... when you start working with animated sequences, "clock time" becomes ordinal and creates the cause-and-effect we as a progression of spatial changes.
I am just trying to find a way to understand this concept, so here are my relationships which come to mind.

Basic calculus, or basic sinusoidal functions.

Calculus because when you take a snap shot of a function, you get one point, and no other information. But when you add the "time" effect, you begin to see the nature of the function as well as derivatives and integral possibilities. In a similar way the yang time is just the pure data, and the yin is the rate of change. The derivative of yang. (I'm not sure that this feels quite right)

So with a sinusoid, the magnitude is the real, the phase is the imaginary (z and arg(z)). I a sense, the magnitude tells you what is happening, and the phase tells you when it is going to happen.

Alluvion
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 12:37 pm

Re: The Essential Nature of the Human Being

Post by Alluvion » Tue Jul 22, 2008 4:14 pm

zenmaster wrote:
Alluvion wrote:It might help us all if we actually compiled an Antiquatis lexicon - drop a word like 'time' here and its pretty much impossible, even with extended explanation, to find everyone totally in sync with the meaning (and the value).

Sound..important?
Good idea. We do not understand the essential nature of many things like 'time'. So depending on context and historical usage, we use the word to point towards what we think we want to convey. For words like 'time', there would be multiple definitions that up to now, only hint at a true or underlying meaning. Here are more: 'space', 'mind', and 'love'. Similarly, we really don't know what 'gravity' or 'emotion' are - we merely describe an effect. There still exist 'hidden variables', and connections to principles we do not yet (or can not yet) appreciate directly.

Attempting to define these terms should elicit what we think we know (which is not much). It is as if we still have our plates full with the superficial versions and so are not ready for more.
A live, collaborative, and 'dynamic' 'dictionary' would be the most useful - language and culture come together kind of like music where relative relationships brought together in time and space begin to create the effect of a 'whole musical piece' - change the order of any one component and the peice shifts to something else.

It wouldn't be enough for us to just have a dictionary because then we would easily exhaust any interest we have due to the volume of meanings, conversational grammatics, etc which could easily produce a single library just on one term alone. How to deal with that multiplicity, considering it is a changing and progressing condition of values and meanings?

Post Reply