Socio-Political Dialectic of the Electric Universe

[lizzie]

Grey Cloud said: Lizzie - Already you are derailing this thread. Note the"socio-political'' part of the title. You are free to start a New Age mumbo-jumbo thread if you so wish.

Gray Cloud – Mague made a comment to your statement about Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva.

Mague said: “Add the ladies and you got the whole truth. This why everything fails. One person studies double helix'es and never can see the full truth. Every magnetic flux has its partner that is either positive negative or indifferent.

I addressed the question to Mague. He is talking about dualities. I was hoping he would advise me if what I posted was what he meant by dualities. I am quoting directly from Sympathetic Vibratory Physics (http://www.svpvril.com/). I didn’t realize that you thought John Keeley was “new age” mumbo jumbo?

[Grey Cloud]

Grey Cloud said: Lizzie - Already you are derailing this thread. Note the"socio-political'' part of the title. You are free to start a New Age mumbo-jumbo thread if you so wish.

Gray Cloud – Mague made a comment to your statement about Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva.

Mague said: “Add the ladies and you got the whole truth. This why everything fails. One person studies double helix'es and never can see the full truth. Every magnetic flux has its partner that is either positive negative or indifferent.

I addressed the question to Mague. He is talking about dualities. I was hoping he would advise me if what I posted was what he meant by dualities. I am quoting directly from Sympathetic Vibratory Physics (http://www.svpvril.com/). I didn’t realize that you thought John Keeley was “new age” mumbo jumbo?

Fair enough and my apologies.
I was actually referring to this

Dynamical Full Gamut of Mind and Matter
http://www.svpvril.com/Cosmology/cosunity1.html

Terrestrial – Female – Mother – Matter
Condensing Ether (+) (Positive Attractive – Female)
Polarity (++)
Radiant Energy (-) (Negative Attractive – Female)

Celestial – Male – Father – Mind
Chaos (-) (Negative Attractive – Male)
Void (Vacuum) (+) (Positive Attractive – Male)

Neutrality (Inertia) Depolar State: (0-; 0+)

Science and scientists should stick to making gadgets and gizmos. To me the above is mumbo-jumbo. It is an example of a modern 'expert' taking what has been around for millenia, complicating it and calling it his own. It's certainly mubo-jumbo for the new age.
I'll stick with what Athene tells me, she hasn't let me down yet.

[mague]

Grey Cloud wrote: Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva - Creator, Sustainer, Transformer.

Mague said: Add the ladies and you got the whole truth.

Shakti/Kali, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva - the Beginning and End of Time, the Creator, the Sustainer, the Transformer

Saraswati/Brahma, Lakshmi/Vishnu, Parvati/Shiva.
Potential and the realisation of potential.

Close, but its deeper...

And Brahma said "There shall be light" and Saraswati said "But not that bright"

Saraswati is not only the birthgiver to Brahmas ideas. She is actively deciding and adding/substracting in the process of creation.

Welcome to mague's absolutely unscientific math of creation.

What we see is 1 unit light. But its 1 unit Brahma light +/- x units Saraswati light.
In this case: 1 unit light = 1 brahma light - 0.5 Saraswati light

Brahma is giving the seed of idea and Saraswati either agrees, disagrees or is indifferent
and then is giving birth to it. Dialectic...

Osiris and Isis "created" Horus. Humans see 1 unit horus. Truth is he is 1 unit Osiris +/- x units Isis.

Ok, creating singularities is easy... Lets create something more complex.

And Brahma said "There shall be dualhelical magnetic flux" and Saraswati said "But a bit stronger please"
1 human dualhelical magnetic flux = 1 Brahma dualhelical magnetic flux + 0.3 Saraswati dualhelical magnetic flux

Brahma is creating a complete system of polarity, currents and dualhelical stuff and Saraswati is adding/substracting another complete system and then gives birth to it. She is neither + nor - , she is a equal counterpart.
Much like in genetics. Male DNA + female DNA = 1 child (1 child = x% father + x% mother). An the child has one DNA, not two.

In extreme situations you can see that Saraswati is even more powerful. She may say no (1 brahma - 1 saraswati = 0 human unit) or even negate it. (1 brahma - 2 saraswati = -1 human unit)

Is she powerful or what ?

Everything, even pairs, exists in pairs, but we see always just one. Why ?

Because we cant see them on our own. Lets build a pair to observe the universe (trigonometry anyone?). A man and a woman connect with a bond of truth and trust. A bond that removes all barriers and allows them to melt together without loosing individuality. Some may see this as love, but it can be an act of will and discipline as well. While "melted" together this pair is able to see Osiris, Isis and Horus at the same time and how much Osiris and Isis is in Horus. Mother and Father are living in the child. All three exist at the same time.

Last example. Universe 1 and universe 2 embrace each other like a Vesica Pisces. The intersecting part is our universe and the circles are universe 1 and universe 2. And all three exist at the same time while we see only the intersection and ponder how it works. Would we care for the parents we would understand better.

[mague]

Are we agreed that Electricity is simply the carrier/medium for Information? To me, this is a core issue in the understanding of what this Universe does.

I cant agree yet. Dogmas scare me. I do agree that the universe in its current state (which may change) uses electricity/magnetics (hen-egg problem here). Right now its seems to be the blood circuit of the universe. The flow that transports matter and energy to certain points where they are needed. It is possible that it is transporting signals as well, but deep inside i think there is another layer. I cant put my fingers on it though.

I think the 4th dimension is time. I think time is not linear but rather a spiral with closed ends. Maybe it is possible to place information and signals into the time. But thats speculation, i am still a 3D being and dont understand the matter of time. Its just what the tendencies seem to announce.

[Grey Cloud]

Mague wrote:

Everything, even pairs, exists in pairs, but we see always just one. Why ?

Because ultimately everything is one? Because everything is ultimately one?
Because One is ultimately everything?

[StevenO]

Last example. Universe 1 and universe 2 embrace each other like a Vesica Pisces. The intersecting part is our universe and the circles are universe 1 and universe 2. And all three exist at the same time while we see only the intersection and ponder how it works. Would we care for the parents we would understand better.

That is why the old Greek called the numbers 1 and 2 the "parents" of all other numbers. Together they create the 3 which creates all others.
Indeed, the (3 dimensional) intersecting part can be viewed as a model of a photon which is the basic particle of our universe.

[Grey Cloud]

Last example. Universe 1 and universe 2 embrace each other like a Vesica Pisces. The intersecting part is our universe and the circles are universe 1 and universe 2. And all three exist at the same time while we see only the intersection and ponder how it works. Would we care for the parents we would understand better.

That is why the old Greek called the numbers 1 and 2 the "parents" of all other numbers. Together they create the 3 which creates all others.
Indeed, the (3 dimensional) intersecting part can be viewed as a model of a photon which is the basic particle of our universe.

Not just the Greeks:

Forty Two

From Tao, One arises.
From One, two.
From two, three.
Three becomes the ten thousand things.

The ten thousand things carry yin on their backs
and hold yang in their arms.
Existence depends on the two.

I Ching. Bart Marshall trans.

[StevenO]

Wow, talking about eternal knowledge...

The Greek copied most from the old Egyptians and were'nt they masters of the universe even a few thousand years before the I Ching traditions? Did the Chinese get the knowledge from them too?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seventy

My words have ancient beginnings.

Fourteen

Look, it cannot be seen - it is beyond form.
Listen, it cannot be heard - it is beyond sound.
Grasp, it cannot be held - it is intangible.
These three are indefinable;
Therefore they are joined in one.

Twenty-nine

Do you think you can take over the universe and improve it?
I do not believe it can be done.

The universe is sacred.
You cannot improve it.

Seventy

My words are easy to understand and easy to perform,
Yet no man under heaven knows them or practices them.

Fifty-six

Those who know do not talk.
Those who talk do not know.

P.S.I found the 42, you guys are just too fast for me...

[bboyer]

....
What does the "forty two" stand for?

The answer to life, the universe, and everything, of course!



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answer_to_ ... Everything

Actually, in this instance I believe it's the verse # of the I Ching from which the quote is taken.

[Divinity]

Last example. Universe 1 and universe 2 embrace each other like a Vesica Pisces. The intersecting part is our universe and the circles are universe 1 and universe 2. And all three exist at the same time while we see only the intersection and ponder how it works. Would we care for the parents we would understand better.

That is why the old Greek called the numbers 1 and 2 the "parents" of all other numbers. Together they create the 3 which creates all others.
Indeed, the (3 dimensional) intersecting part can be viewed as a model of a photon which is the basic particle of our universe.

Outstanding! I am bowing to you both, thank you!

The way I see it is the two circles are overlayed, one on top of the other, as Uni 1 and Uni 2, both interracting/interplaying continuously (tensegrity again). Both are our parents and yes, Mague, if we saw them as loving/supremely intelligent, we would understand them better and have a richer experience. Together, their union will go on to create Uni 3, but not quite yet as Uni 2 has not finished playing.

[Grey Cloud]

Wow, talking about eternal knowledge.
The Greek copied most knowledge from the old Egyptians, BTW. Were'nt they masters of the universe even a few thousand years before the I Ching traditions. Did the Chinese get it from them too?

What does the "forty two" stand for?

It's the chapter number - nothing deep or inscrutable.
Lao Tzu was around at about the same time as the presocratics and the Buddha.
Bart Marshall's translation can be downloaded here:
http://www.searchwithin.org/download.htm

[StevenO]

Lao Tzu was around at about the same time as the presocratics and the Buddha.

I read "he" was from Pythagoras' time, so way later than the Ancient Egyptians...

Bart Marshall's translation can be downloaded here:
http://www.searchwithin.org/download.htm

I like this one: http://http-server.carleton.ca/~rgray/TaoTeChing/

[Grey Cloud]

Lao Tzu was around at about the same time as the presocratics and the Buddha.

I read "he" was from Pythagoras' time, so way later than the Ancient Egyptians...

Bart Marshall's translation can be downloaded here:
http://www.searchwithin.org/download.htm

I like this one: http://http-server.carleton.ca/~rgray/TaoTeChing/

I don't bother about who was 'first' as I believe the knowledge has been around as long as we have.
I'll stick with my Bart Marshall translation. Your's was more like transliteration so the English was crap. Take this example:
Yours:

Six
The valley spirit never dies;
It is the woman, primal mother.
Her gateway is the root of heaven and Earth.
It is like a veil barely seen.
Use it; it will never fail.

Mine:

Six
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.

The Marshall trans allows the I Ching to fit more easily with other sources, e.g.

Seventy Seven

The way of heaven, is it not like the stringing of a bow?
The high end is lowered, the low is raised up.
If the string is too long it is shortened.
If the string is too short it is lengthened.

Heraclitus:

Men do not know how what is at variance agrees with itself. It is an attunement of opposite tension, like that of the bow and the lyre.
Fr 51

[StevenO]

Maybe this is a discussion we should'nt have...because how about this one?:

Eleven

Thirty spokes of the wheel converge
to define a hole.
Clay is molded into pots
to shape emptiness.
Walls are hammered into rooms
to enclosed space.
Windows are cut into walls
to frame absence.
Though things may have value,
without no-thing they are useless.

Eleven

Thirty spokes share the wheel's hub;
It is the center hole that makes it useful.
Shape clay into a vessel;
It is the space within that makes it useful.
Cut doors and windows for a room;
It is the holes which make it useful.
Therefore benefit comes from what is there;
Usefulness from what is not there.

[Grey Cloud]

Not quite, Grasshopper,
Yours is emphasising the physical and practical: three usefuls and a usefulness. It misses the part about walls and says that windows and doors make a room, which they don't. It also has a nonsensical last line:
'Therefore benefit comes from what is there; Usefulness from what is not there'.

Mine is emphasising the metaphysical and conceptual: hole, emptiness, space, absence. My last line is: 'Though things may have value, without no-thing they are useless'. It is referring to that which is beyond the sensory and obvious. The silence that allows you to hear sound; the darkness that allows you to see light, etc. That from which the physical emerges.
'no-thing' is that from which 'things' originate.
You can't get something from nothing but you do get every thing from no-thing.

The I Ching is an alchemical text, I haven't checked but I'm guessing that this would be lost in your translation.