What is Real?

What is a human being? What is life? Can science give us reliable answers to such questions? The electricity of life. The meaning of human consciousness. Are we alone? Are the traditional contests between science and religion still relevant? Does the word "spirit" still hold meaning today?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: What is Real?

Unread postby mague » Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:17 am

I had to switch PC. Here is part 2

So we are back to square 1 ? No !

There is this nice scene in Lord of the Rings:

Gandalf asks Aragorn: You think Frodo is dead ?
Aragorn answers: What is your heart telling you ?
Gandalf replies: He lives..

This is how we learn to sense things. Does the bridge between 7843763889476234872397852895724562457234 and infinity exist ?
What does your heart tell you ? To make it simple,lets assume everyone agrees with a yes ;)

We do not run in circles but we run up a spiraling stair unless we dont get caught in a neurosis. Our existance is an oscillating field of energy. Breath in and out...

However, now that we try to cross the invissible bridge the word reality has got a whole new quality. And i do think that reality alters everytime we finish a circle of the helix. Reality seems be like time. Maybe even is related to time. Time seems to be spiraling too. There is a reality behind us, one at the moment and one ahead of us. But none of them is the full reality on its own.
There was this quantum physicsist who said that an observer is altering the observed object just by observing it. It changed state from unobserved to observed by person X and is therefor a different object. Reality changed. If observer X has a 2nd look the state changes from first time observed by person X to 2nd time observed by perosn X. reality changed again. Therefor i think reality is not a matter but a state of matter. I rather would like to say its a state of energy, but thats a bit far fetched for scientists i guess.

In the end ist a huge band of frequencies and how our spot of consciousness is interpreting his little window of it.
mague
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 2:44 am

Re: What is Real?

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Tue Jun 17, 2008 10:03 am

Mague is this what you mean?
CHAPTER IX

VIBRATION.

“Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates.”–The Kybalion.

The great Third Hermetic Principle–the Principle of Vibration–embodies the truth that
Motion is manifest in everything in the Universe–that nothing is at rest–that everything
moves, vibrates, and circles. This Hermetic Principle was recognized by some of the early
Greek philosophers who embodied it in their systems. But, then, for centuries it was lost
sight of by the thinkers outside of the Hermetic ranks. But in the Nineteenth Century physical
science re-discovered the truth and the Twentieth Century scientific discoveries have added
additional proof of the correctness and truth of this centuries-old Hermetic doctrine.
The Hermetic Teachings are that not only is everything in constant movement and
vibration, but that the “differences” between the various manifestations of the universal
power are due entirely to the varying rate and mode of vibrations. Not only this, but that even THE ALL, in itself, manifests a constant vibration of such an infinite degree of intensity and rapid motion that it may be practically considered as at rest, the teachers directing the
attention of the students to the fact that even on the physical plane a rapidly moving object
(such as a revolving wheel) seems to be at rest. The Teachings are to the effect that Spirit is
at one end of the Pole of Vibration, the other Pole being certain extremely gross forms of
Matter. Between these two poles are millions upon millions of different rates and modes of
vibration.
Modern Science has proven that all that we call Matter and Energy are but “modes of
vibratory motion,” and some of the more advanced scientists are rapidly moving toward the
positions of the occultists who hold that the phenomena of Mind are likewise modes of
vibration or motion. Let us see what science has to say regarding the question of vibrations
in matter and energy.
In the first place, science teaches that all matter manifests, in some degree, the vibrations
arising from temperature or heat. Be an object cold or hot–both being but degrees of the
same things–it manifests certain heat vibrations, and in that sense is in motion and vibration.
Then all particles of Matter are in circular movement, from corpuscle to suns. The planets
revolve around suns, and many of them turn on their axes. The suns move around greater
central points, and these are believed to move around still greater, and so on, ad infinitum.
The molecules of which the particular kinds of Matter are composed are in a state of
constant vibration and movement around each other and against each other. The molecules
are composed of Atoms, which, likewise, are in a state of constant movement and vibration.
The atoms are composed of Corpuscles, sometimes called “electrons,” “ions,” etc., which
also are in a state of rapid motion, revolving around each other, and which manifest a very
rapid state and mode of vibration. And, so we see that all forms of Matter manifest Vibration, in accordance with the Hermetic Principle of Vibration.
And so it is with the various forms of Energy. Science teaches that Light, Heat,
Magnetism and Electricity are but forms of vibratory motion connected in some way with,
and probably emanating from the Ether. Science does not as yet attempt to explain the
nature of the phenomena known as Cohesion, which is the principle of Molecular Attraction;
nor Chemical Affinity, which is the principle of Atomic Attraction; nor Gravitation (the greatest mystery of the three), which is the principle of attraction by which every particle or mass of Matter is bound to every other particle or mass. These three forms of Energy are not as yet understood by science, yet the writers incline to the opinion that these too are manifestations of some form of vibratory energy, a fact which the Hermetists have held and taught for ages past.
<snip>
But the Hermetic Teachings go much further than do those of modern science. They
teach that all manifestation of thought, emotion, reason, will or desire, or any mental state or condition, are accompanied by vibrations, a portion of which are thrown off and which tend to affect the minds of other persons by “induction.” This is the principle which produces the
phenomena of “telepathy”; mental influence, and other forms of the action and power of mind over mind, with which the general public is rapidly becoming acquainted, owing to the wide dissemination of occult knowledge by the various schools, cults and teachers along these
lines at this time.
Every thought, emotion or mental state has its corresponding rate and mode of vibration.
And by an effort of the will of the person, or of other persons, these mental states may be
reproduced, just as a musical tone may be reproduced by causing an instrument to vibrate at
a certain rate–just as color may be reproduced in the same way. By a knowledge of the
Principle of Vibration, as applied to Mental Phenomena, one may polarize his mind at any
degree he wishes, thus gaining a perfect control over his mental states, moods, etc. In the
same way he may affect the minds of others, producing the desired mental states in them. In
short, be may be able to produce on the Mental Plane that which science produces on the
Physical Plane–namely, “Vibrations at Will.” This power of course may be acquired only by
the proper instruction, exercises, practice, etc., the science being that of Mental
Transmutation, one of the branches of the Hermetic Art.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: What is Real?

Unread postby junglelord » Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:54 pm

Nice quote, I used it in the Charge thread. Thanks.
:D
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: What is Real?

Unread postby mague » Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:54 pm

Grey Cloud wrote:Mague is this what you mean?
CHAPTER IX

VIBRATION.

[...]

In short, be may be able to produce on the Mental Plane that which science produces on the
Physical Plane–namely, “Vibrations at Will.” This power of course may be acquired only by
the proper instruction, exercises, practice, etc., the science being that of Mental
Transmutation, one of the branches of the Hermetic Art.


Yes. This is quite close to my thoughts. But the chapter also is in a slight state of "darkness" ;) Who wrote this ? Is Kybalion egual to Cabala ?

About the last chapter i quotet above:

There is, or better there should be no state of matter (vibration) at will. Everything out there has its natural state / mode. A tree is a tree and should stay that. Legends tell tales about the dark age of witchcraft and how it ruined our world. Science inventet reams of techniques that allow us to change the state of matter. We do mine for iron and build cars, we do drill for oil to create plastic. I am not a neoludit, cars and plastic do have positive and negative aspects.
However, to change the state of matter you need power/energy. To gain such power we have to take it away from somewhere. If we take energy/power away, isnt it missing somewhere. Every step, from mining to gaining power (electricity), we take to build a single car alters reality on many levels. Cause and effect..

The same goes for the mental world. Vampires try to gain an unnatural amout of lifepower to alter the state of their decay. Witches try to gain power above their natural level to alter the state of matter at their will. Just like in the EU there is a natural flow of charges/power. We humans have the same, a natural supply of energy. Any attempt to gain power above that is wrong. Not as in moral but as in science. We cant take away matter/power/energy from somewher an use it at our will. We leave a gap. The power we took is missing somewhere. This is a chaotic/mindless change of reality all the time. Cause and effect will teach us this lesson.

Actually we do learn how our industrial age has flaws. Overpoulation, hunger, poisoned natural resources like water and air. Its a bit like in chemistry. If we use power to splitt H2O in to H and O. We changed reality, we gained H and O but we have no water anymore to quench our thirst. Cause and effect. Of course H and O will reunite to H2O. While this is good its also a warning. Things seem to try to rebalance into their natural state. In this process they may have effects. They may emit or absorb energy and us humans have no chance to control it. The powers we gained as humankind may be taken away from us in an uncontrolable way. People already talk about the possibility of a breakdown of our gene pool, degeneration of societies into decadency.
mague
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 2:44 am

Re: What is Real?

Unread postby redeye » Wed Jun 18, 2008 2:19 am

Vampires try to gain an unnatural amout of lifepower to alter the state of their decay. Witches try to gain power above their natural level to alter the state of matter at their will.


I don't know how serious you are with this comment but it reminds me of the writing of Jim Butcher

It's not really my kind of thing but the books are good, and very funny.

Cheers!
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our mind."
Bob Marley
User avatar
redeye
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:56 am
Location: Dunfermline

Re: What is Real?

Unread postby Muser » Wed Jun 18, 2008 2:33 am

When it comes to what is material and what isn't we seem to consider only 3D space as material. But dimensional space is only defined through our inner perception, and this does not require what we can see, only perceive internally. As we move through space, even within our own individual boundaries on Earth, we plot, and form a world inside us. The visual stimuli from the eyes can give us some confirmation, but the dimensional aspect is not formed in the eyes, only the inner perception. Hence the regular optical illusions we all experience - the unreal "realities" which our eyes can, under certain circumstances, encourage us to "see".

A blind person does not need to see with the eyes, or get stimulus from the eyes, to work out a spacial awareness.

I would also add it is not always common knowledge, although it may be that the members of Thunderbolt are aware, that there are two different optical nerves bringing stimulus to the brain. One deals with the general static images, and the other deals with movement only. Combine the two bits of stimuli and we get a general image of moving objects and dimensional, sometimes static forms.

I saw a tv prog once which showed how a man who was blind in one eye, could nevertheless see things move when the good eye was blindfolded. Leave something static in front of him and he would bump into it, but have something move and he could detect it. What is it he is really detecting? What is real and what isn't for this man?

We have a lot of alternative stimuli sources other than the basic five senses, and we can use the information from these sources to give us guidance as to what is around. I believe this also includes information normally not available to us because it is out of sight, sound, or smell, and even beyond time (precognitive).
Muser
Guest
 

Re: What is Real?

Unread postby mague » Wed Jun 18, 2008 3:50 am

redeye wrote:
Vampires try to gain an unnatural amout of lifepower to alter the state of their decay. Witches try to gain power above their natural level to alter the state of matter at their will.


I don't know how serious you are with this comment but it reminds me of the writing of Jim Butcher

It's not really my kind of thing but the books are good, and very funny.

Cheers!

Well, vampirism just has such a nice lore to describe the mechanics how humanoids obtain power to alter reality. The vampires fight the reality of deacy by obtaining power in a quite rude way. Another archetype is the young and beautiful witch. She is eating children to stay young and beautiful. I agree, its quite folkloristic. Although folklore is part of our heritage.
Still *cough* isnt it funny how 1st world remains healthy on the cost of the 3rd world ? Or lately upper classes live on the cost of lower classes ? Even the egypt mummies are evidence how egyp priests tried to alter the reality of death. The energy to build burial chambers and pyramids cant be neglected.
Late tribes in central america only started wars to catch humans for human sacrifies.
Its always the same. Be if folklore or science. Its about having enough power to alter the reality.
mague
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 2:44 am

Re: What is Real?

Unread postby redeye » Wed Jun 18, 2008 5:43 am

Still *cough* isnt it funny how 1st world remains healthy on the cost of the 3rd world ?


Yeah, that's the way I see it. Individual freedoms are usually obtained at the expense of somebody else's freedom. We live in a closed system, if you are buying cheap food or clothing it is usually because somebody else has been exploited to enable the savings.

Although folklore is part of our heritage.


One of the points Jim Butcher makes in his books is that our reality dismisses the folklore of older societies as fantasy. This is not helpful, especially nowadays when our reality is massproduced and marketed in an effort to control the populace. One of the hardest things to do is to cast off the shackles of what you think you know, but if you can manage this you will be on your way to discovering true reality.

I'm quite fortunate in this case as I didn't really know much to begin with!

Cheers!
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our mind."
Bob Marley
User avatar
redeye
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:56 am
Location: Dunfermline

Re: What is Real?

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Wed Jun 18, 2008 7:14 am

Hi Mague
The Kybalion was written in the first decade or two of the C20th by 'Three Initiates' and can be found here:
http://www.hermetics.org/pdf/kybalion.pdf
Essentially it is a concise (pp60) exposition of the Ancient Wisdom or Perennial Philosophy and is therefore related to Qabala and other traditions.

However, to change the state of matter you need power/energy. To gain such power we have to take it away from somewhere. If we take energy/power away, isnt it missing somewhere.

I understand where you are coming from here but matter is power/energy. There is enough power/energy in the Universe to cope, one would merely be converting energy form state A to state B.
The realm of heaven and earth is like a bellows,
both empty and full.
Moving, it brings forth, endlessly.
I Ching 5

or
The urge of creation is ceaseless.
It is called the Dark Mother.

The womb of the Dark Mother
is the ground of heaven and earth.

Timeless, imperceptible,
it continues ever-present.

Endless use does not touch it.
I Ching 6
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: What is Real?

Unread postby mague » Sun Jun 22, 2008 3:13 am

Hello,

Grey Cloud wrote:I understand where you are coming from here but matter is power/energy. There is enough power/energy in the Universe to cope, one would merely be converting energy form state A to state B.
The realm of heaven and earth is like a bellows,
both empty and full.
Moving, it brings forth, endlessly.
I Ching 5

or
The urge of creation is ceaseless.
It is called the Dark Mother.

The womb of the Dark Mother
is the ground of heaven and earth.

Timeless, imperceptible,
it continues ever-present.

Endless use does not touch it.
I Ching 6


There is a natural baseline of reality. We might leave this line to the one or other side sometimes. I d call it the natural bandwidth of a being. Some may have a wider spectrum, some a more narrow spectrum. This is nowadays one of the biggest problems of our society. We cant accept the borders of our personal and collective bandwidth.
We are allowed to kill for food, we are not allowed to kill more then we can eat. The same story again. We want to obtain an "unnatural" amount of power to alter more reality then we are natuarally able to.
It doesnt matter if the universe and the possibly existing abstract space beyond is endless. All things tend to return to their natural state. As long as an entity opperates withing its given natural bandwidth there is basically no cause and no effect. On a side note ripe corn and weat is golden ;) and dead. Its causeless food and its no wonder that the Maya had a corn god. Once an entity leaves his natural bandwidth there is cause and effect.
Once we start to kill more then we can eat for the purpose of selling the hides we might run out of food sooner or later. The "system" turns against you. One mights say the effect tries to remove the cause. As if the situation tries to erase and nullify itself to maintain natural balance on a larger scale.

I agree with I-Ching. We cant touch the whole picture. But we are able to touch smaller areas and cause effects that will haunt humankind.
mague
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 2:44 am

Re: What is Real?

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Sun Jun 22, 2008 4:17 am

Hi Mague,
I agree with the morality of what you are saying but I think you worry too much. We cannot break the Law. That said, it does not mean that we should ride rough-shod over everything else on the planet just because we think we can.
While I appreciate the context in which you are using the term 'cause and effect' I would argue that cause and effect operates everywhere all the time as everything is connected to everything else. Even corn has effects: the nutrients it takes from the soil; the fact that something else cannot grow in the spot where the corn is, etc.
This physical reality is maya in the Hindu sense: illusion, light, magic.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: What is Real?

Unread postby mague » Mon Jun 23, 2008 4:35 am

Grey Cloud wrote:Hi Mague,
I agree with the morality of what you are saying but I think you worry too much. We cannot break the Law. That said, it does not mean that we should ride rough-shod over everything else on the planet just because we think we can.
While I appreciate the context in which you are using the term 'cause and effect' I would argue that cause and effect operates everywhere all the time as everything is connected to everything else. Even corn has effects: the nutrients it takes from the soil; the fact that something else cannot grow in the spot where the corn is, etc.
This physical reality is maya in the Hindu sense: illusion, light, magic.


Dont worry. The older i grow the more moral turns into something very abstract. Just like the scientists who proagate the EU for a better undertsanding of our universe i try to tell people about the power of their natural baseline.
I am a practising traditional Shiatsu and for me there is no doubt anymore that Chi exists. Every disturbance within a human body i encountered so far had a cause and the effect "sickness" allready manisfested or was on its way to manifest. The cure is, without any exeption, to help the physical body/the Chi and the emotions back to its natural balance.
In that context moral doesnt exist. People use drungs, people work themself to death for status, money and compliments. People may be full of anger and turn into violent or even criminal people. All those people keep lying to themselfs, just like the ancient black mages. I have the power, i am special and can do that, it cant harm me... always the same excuses. But there is nothing amoral, just the inability to deal with energies and forces.

You cant lie over the course of 20 years without messing with yourself. First your mind has to keep two versions of reality. Long term effect is a tendency to shizophrenia. 2nd you mess with your memory. Storing lies and reality over a long time is not much different to the mental training athlets use. The difference is, that lies are grabage. After a few years the avarage person cant get rid of the grabage and tend to isolate themselfs to hide it. It sinks into the autonomus nervous system and finally "infects" your organs and basic funktions like heartbeat, breathing and posture. The pysical, emotional and energetic body is disturbed. The rule "you shall no lie" has quite some meaning and morale has almost nothing to do with it ;) The question is rasther if we are smart enough to survive in an electric universe ;)
mague
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 2:44 am

Re: What is Real?

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:22 am

To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man.
Francis Bacon - As You Like It.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Material from Non Material Linear Thread

Unread postby Antone » Sun Jul 06, 2008 11:51 am

junglelord wrote:... how does non material become material?

While my answer isn't any more of an absolute answer than anyone elses is... I would say that I think it is probably a mistake to assume that [non-material] changes into something [material]. In other words, it is wrong to assume that first you have [non-material], which ceases to be, so that [material] can come into existence.

By way of analogy, it's a bit like the numbers [1] and [2]... which are both needed to make the fractions [1/2] and [2/1]. We might think of [1] as being [non-material] and [2] as being [material], while [1/2] and [2/1] are different perspectives of the same realities.

Now, [2/1] appear to be [material] because it seems to be equivalent to [2]. But without the [1] in [2/1], [2] is meaningless. For example, [2 people] are identical to [1 couple]. Without a meaningful unit of measure [2] is indistinguishable from [1]. It is the [1] in the fraction, [2/1] which provides the unit by which we define what it is that [2] refers to. Thus, [2/1] is not really identical to [2], because the fraction has its unit defined, while technically [2] does not. Thus, there is a sense in which [2] can be equal to virtually any [pair of things] we want it to be: [2 apples], [2 car], [2 solar systems].

To see how [1/2] and [2/1] are really just reciprocal aspects of the same thing, we can continue to consider the [two people] who form a [couple]. A person is [1 of the two units] in a couple, so a person is [1/2] of a [couple]. Conversely, a couple is [2] of the [1 person] units.

If you remove either the [people] aspect or the [2 = coupling] aspect... the idea of a [couple] falls apart and becomes essentially meaningless. Both aspects are necessary to convey the meaning of [couple]--even though the [2 = coupling] aspect would appear to be redundant. But remove what it is you are coupling, and it is meaningless to couple anything. An [apple coupled with an orange] is a meaningless grouping in terms of [apples] or in terms of [oranges]... but when we give it an appropriate unit, they beome [2 fruit].

Thus, the apple has both the [individual aspect of being a single apple] and the [collective aspect of being one of two fruit]. Thus, the reality that is [the apple and the orange] includes both the idea that the apple is one of two distinct objects, and the idea that the apple is a 1/2 of two similar objects.

Everything that is has a similar sort of reciprocal structure... and often the aspects in question are reciprocal with respect to being [material] or [non-material].
User avatar
Antone
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:28 pm

Re: What is Real?

Unread postby Antone » Sun Jul 06, 2008 12:03 pm

The Shadow Analogy

A shadow appears to be a very simple phenomenon, and yet it is also a very complex phenomena--and I believe we can gain some understanding of your question by examining its nature.

Epiphenomenalism: According to a theory, known as epiphenomenalism, mental activity should not be thought of as a phenomena in the brain, but rather should be thought of as a by-product or side-effect of the physical states of the body, (including the brain). Thus, the mind is seen as being related to the body in much the way that a shadow is related to the object that casts it. A shadow is not made of any kind of stuff. It is simply a side-effect that occurs under the proper range of conditions; the exact shape and clarity of a shadow depends on what the current conditions are, (such as how bright and focused the light is and what kind of object is making the shadow.) Moreover, the shape of a shadow depends on the shape of the object casting it, but it would seem that the reverse is not true. Objects don't change their shape because a shadow does.

One of the apparent problems with epiphenomenalism is that if mental activity is analogous to a shadow this implies that mental thoughts are not really capable of causing us to behave in a specific way, as we intuitively believe that they do. For instance, we intuitively believe that when we feel thirsty we may decide to take a drink or we may decide not to drink. The choice is ours; and it is that mental activity (choosing) that causes us to drink.

But if mind is merely a by-product, (analogous to a shadow,) then it can't be a mental decision that makes us decide to drink when we're thirsty. As we said, a shadow doesn't move and cause a change in the shape of the thing that is casting it. So our belief that we are making a decision must be nothing more than an illusion; and what we call mind is nothing but a non-causal side-effect of the activity in the brain.

A New Approach: A shadow is certainly a by-product or side-effect, but seeing it strictly in these terms does little to tell us exactly what a shadow is. I believe a better way to understand the nature of a shadow is to ask not what it is, but how it is produced. When we do this, we begin to understand that a shadow is produced by a process.

  • Epiphenomenalism asks, "What is a shadow?"
    And answers, "It is a by-product or side-effect."
  • This new approach asks, "How is a shadow produced?"
    And answers, "By a process."
It's pretty obvious that in order for a shadow to occur certain things must be present, these can be summed up as follows:
1. A suitable surface onto which the shadow will fall,
2. A source of suitably focused light,
3. An object between the surface and the light source, and
4. A level of background (or unfocused) light which is low in comparison to the intensity of the focused light.

What may not be quite as obvious is that these things can be further divided into what we might call (for the purposes of our discussion here) Conditionals and Processionals: Conditionals are typically more-or-less physical in nature; they are all things that exist independently of the shadow. The Processionals are non-physical factors that never the less must be present in order for the process as a whole to work.
1. The necessary Conditionals are:
....a. A surface
....b. A light source, and
....c. An object.
2. The necessary Processionals are:
....a. The [surface] should be sufficiently reflective,
....b. The [light source] should be sufficiently focused and suitably intense,
....c. The [object] should be between the [surface] and the [light source], but not actually touching the [surface], and
....d. The relative intensity of any unfocused (background) light should be low compared to the intensity of the focused light.

Notice that each of the Processionals involve certain relational aspects that aren't actually named, but should be considered a part of what the Processional is. Take [2c], for instance: if the object is closer to the surface, it will be larger and darker. If it is closer to the light source it will be smaller and lighter. Each of the Processionals has a similar, variable relational-aspect.

There are also other Processionals that, while generally not necessary to produce a shadow, can affect the final shape and intensity of the shadow. For example: the angle at which the [light source] strikes the [object]; how far the [light source] is from the [reflective surface]; and the shape of that [surface]. For the most part, however, these unessential Processionals don't prevent the shadow from being formed as long as the other necessary Processionals are present. For instance, if you keep moving a table lamp further and further away from you, it won't be long before the light from it will not be intense enough to produce a noticeable shadow. The sun, on the other hand is much, much further away, but because it has a much greater intensity it is still capable of casting a shadow at a much greater distance away.

Notice that choosing the [intensity] of the light source as the necessary Processional, (rather than the [distance],) was somewhat arbitrary. It could just as easily be the other way around. I could have said that the [light source] must be suitably close to the [surface]. Then the intensity of the light would be considered an unessential Processional.

The important thing to keep in mind is that Processionals are relational aspects that interact with with each other, (and the Conditionals,) in complex ways; even when the product is something as apparently simple as a shadow. Furthermore, if any of these Conditionals or Processionals are not sufficiently present, a shadow will not be form. For example, we don't see shadows hanging in mid air, like a rainbow. You only see them on a surface, like the ground or a wall. Nor do you see an object that is not between the surface and a light casting a shadow. Likewise, we generally don't see a [pane of glass] casting a shadow, because glass it is generally not sufficiently opaque to block enough light to form a shadow. And, how clearly the shadow is defined depends on how well Conditionals and Processionals are met. A suitable surface implies a surface that is capable of reflecting light in a coherent way. A very dark surface is less effective at reflecting light, and will produce a somewhat less noticeable shadow; while a smooth surface is a more effective reflector than a rough surface, so a sponge of the same color as a shiny smooth table-top will allow for a weaker shadow. Likewise, you might still be able to see a shadow on an overcast day, but that shadow will be much fainter than it would be on a bright and sunny day.

Understanding the Nature of Shadows: We've looked at some of the more obvious truths about shadows: for instance what is necessary to make one, and that the final form of the shadow depends on how the various relational-aspect interact; but there are other, perhaps less obvious qualities of shadows that need to be considered as well:

1. With respect to a given shadow, Process and Conditionals are completely interdependent and bi-directionally causal: Intuitively, it seems pretty obvious that if we change a shadow's Conditionals we will change the nature of the shadow. For instance, all things being equal, if we change the size of the [object] we will change the size of the resulting shadow. A bigger object will produce a bigger shadow. But we can also change the nature of the shadow by changing only one of the Processionals. For instance, if the [object] is closer to the light source, it will also cast a bigger shadow, although it won't be as intense. In a sense, nothing about the Conditionals has been changed. The object is the same size, the light is the same intensity, and the surface is just as smooth. But the nature of the shadow has still been changed because of a new causal relationship between the Conditionals. Moreover, the same relational aspects hold true for all shadows. Every shadow will get bigger and fainter as you move the [object] closer to the [light source].

Thus, we see that any change in either the Conditionals or the Processionals results in a necessary change in the nature of the resulting shadow. How the shadow changes, and how much is carefully defined by the complex interaction of all the Conditionals and Processionals.

2. In a sense, Processionals and Conditionals are the same thing: If you remove every last hint of the Processionals from any given process the Conditionals disappear, for as we will see, all Conditionals are also ultimately Processes and therefore they must have Processionals. But neither can you get rid of the Conditionals and call everything a Processional; because a Processional can't exist in the real world without there being some Conditional that is involved in the process.

Because of this bi-causal relationship, we might refer to the shadow (and all other jointly created entities) as a Causal-Entity.
3. Process and Conditionals have distinct and opposite qualities:
a. The Process which creates a Causal-Entity is non-spatial: it has no mass or location. For example, the shadow can be said to have a location, but the process itself does not. Nor is it divisible, in physical terms. The various elements of a process are the Conditionals, which by themselves are not sufficient to create a shadow. And finally, a Process is not public, because you can not directly perceive it. We can indirectly perceive the Process in the form of the Causal-Entity, but this perception will frequently appear to be missing some of the aspects we would expect from a physical thing. For instance, a shadow is physical in a sense and not physical in a sense. We can see it with our eye, but we cannot feel it. All we can touch is the surface that it is on. Thus, we can say that the shadow is definitely there (and something is going on) in the physical world; but it is just as definitely not there in the same sense as a true physical object.
b. In contrast, the physical Conditionals, (of which every process must have at least one,) are spatial. The [Surface] and the [Light Blocking Object] are real, physical objects, having mass and location; which, of course, means that they are also divisible. And because anyone can see them they are obviously public.

4. Causal Entities are Related in a Hierarchical Way: As we know from quantum physics, the situation with light is a little different matter. (Remember that light was a Conditional for a shadow.) You could say that Light is more like the shadow than the other two Conditionals which were physical objects: the [Surface] or the [Light Blocking Object]. Light does have a physical aspect, which we call photons, but it also has a non-physical aspect, which we call waves. Also, the wave aspect of light is not divisible.

To make sense of what's going on here, we need to realize that Causal-Entities can contain other, smaller Causal-Entities as one of it's Conditionals. And, if a Causal-Entities can do this then it also stands to reason that it can become a Conditional for another, larger Causal-Entities. For example, the [Shadow Concept] is a necessary Conditional for explaining the process of a motion picture. Think about it. Certain parts of the film block more or less of the light so that parts of the screen are darker than other parts. Obviously, color and other elements are also involved, but all the shadow Conditionals are satisfied by the movie process. (1) A movie is typically shown in a dark room to increase the contrast between the focused and non focused light. (2) The film serves as a variable barrier to block different amounts of the light shining through the film, (3) And from the projector, which is the source of focused light. And finally, (4) the screen provides a highly reflective surface for the shadows of light to dance against.

In the same way that a shadow is a Conditional in the larger Causal-Entity which is a movie, so too, light is a Conditional for the larger Causal-Entity that is a shadow.

5. Conditionals are related to one another in complex way that are capable of forming cycles and other more complex structural dynamics. This fact allows a single Causal-Entity to vary in more than one way. We saw above that a shadow could become lighter or darker, but there are other ways to see a shadow as being more or less of a shadow. For instance, at noon my shadow may be very dark, but because of the angle of the sun's rays the size of the shadow that is cast is very small. If you're out jogging at night you might pass under a series of night lamps. When you're right under the light your shadow is all but undetectable. But then, as you move away from it your shadow begins to enlarge, becoming more obvious. As you move further away from the light the shadow can become very long, but because the light is further away the shadow is also less clearly defined. Eventually the shadow becomes so long and so weakly defined that it seems to disappears altogether. By this time, you may be moving close enough to another night lamp that a new shadow is being cast behind you. Slowly it seems to catch up with you until it is once again right under you and seems to disappear.
6. All Causal-Entities have a physical and a non-physical aspect: Because of the incredibly wide range of ways that Causal-Entities can be interrelated, there is also a wide range of ways that Causal-Entities express these physical and non-physical aspects. For example: You can see a shadow, so in a sense you can say that there is something there, in the physical world. But you can't touch it. If you put your fingers on the surface where the shadow exists all you'll feel is the surface, not the shadow. So you can also say that the shadow is not physical. Likewise, light has a physical aspect, which we call a photon; and a non-physical aspect, which we call a wave.

This pattern holds true at one level or another for every Causal-Entity, and since all physical objects are Causal-Entities, all physical objects must also have a non-physical aspect. This is true in two different ways: (a) In a sense, matter and energy are equivalent, so again we see the same physical and non-physical pattern. In this case, it's just a little less obvious. Because a physical object has all the properties that we typically use to define what makes an object physical, the non-physical nature of such an object can only be seen on the very small scale of the microscopic, or in theoretical principle: mass=energy. (b) all physical things can be said to fit into one or more conceptual categories. These conceptual categories are not physical in any normal sense of the word, and are, in essence, nothing but [Process].[/list]

By way of analogy: the shadow is akin to reality. The processionals are what is [non-material] while the conditionals are what is [material]. The shadow may appear to have material qualities, but in reality it has qualities that are both [material and non-material]. Or we can just as easily think of it as being neither [material or non-material]. But more importantly, if you remove either the [material] or the [non-material] aspects that are necessary to create the shadow, the shadow ceases to exist.

I believe it is the same thing with reality. You can not suppose that the [material] and [non-material] aspects are distinct and different--or that you can remove one without removing they other. They are interdependent, reciprocal aspects--or in other words, two different ways of looking at the exact same thing.
User avatar
Antone
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:28 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Human Question

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest