The principle of vibration

[Mr Cheese]

That I keep trying? I'm preaching not to convert, but rather to perfect my sermon. Forgive me.

That we are becoming as gods of old? In a way, we already are. Remember the "Connecticut Yankee" thread? Assume I know absolutely jack (shouldn't be too hard ) and I go way back when. No lighter, no textbook. But the ancients knew of lodestone and copper - I figure me and they could figure out how to spin one inside another. I wouldn't be a god like Ra, but Quetzalcoatl would suffice.

But in a manner, friend zenzero speaks true; it's not so much a matter of becoming as matter of not striving against being. Going with the flow - which is not evolution as science currently understands it - but evolution none the less.

consider this:

I gained nothing at all from supreme enlightenment
It is for that very reason it is called supreme enlightenment

--Buddha

 

[imaginaryme]

So do you acept that there is no connection between numerology and Kraus's talk? If there is justiy it, if there isnt why did you put them in the same paragraph with no hint that the two issues are not related?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

In the freaking mathematics. Do you just not wanna agree? Did you check out that Calabi-Yau Space I posted with you in mind? If I post a link to an hour long video, you gonna watch it? It comes from Dawkins pad on youtube - so it must be "atheist-safe."

How about some more numerology with my magic number four? The cosmic string. The nucleus of an atom. The Earth. The Universe. these four things are equally divided by twenty orders of magnitude - ten to the twentieth power - so the string is to the nucleus as the Earth is to the Universe. Now, it the nucleus of the atom was the size of an orange, the electron circles around the cheap seats if we set the orange at the fifty-yard line. That's big; but nowhere near "Earth to Universe" big. It has long been known that the proton consists of two up and one down (or is it the other way round? I think that's it) quarks - but it is now presumed that something like 98% of the proton actually contains... well, empty space. Yet space ain't empty.

Found it. A Universe from nothing, by Lawrence Krauss. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Highly recommended. Krauss is a lively and entertaining speaker - the hour flies by. The only unfortunate thing is Dawkins and his agenda - A Universe from nothing is obviously a way to say "no creator need apply," but Krauss covers it by saying, in the beginning - there was vibration.

And listen to some dang Doors. Maybe you'll hear somethin'. Rock on. :jam:

Intentionally, it is not included within the same paragraph. I talk about the video - I rant - I talk about the video. I'm a dang poet, is what the problem is; but if you cannot see this structure, there's little use talking of hidden geometric structure. And again... you interpret one line of rant, and ignore the rest of the body of rant... while this whole other body of rant was was how rant related to video.

Never mind.

 

[skydivephil]

Can I humbly suggest , less ranting and a more concise presentation of relevant points? especially on a fourm that is entitles science versus religion. I do appreciate poetry but usually when its presented as such .

 

[imaginaryme]

Friend imagineryme,

Its just a play /maya / illusion; nothing serious though you may be taking it seriously. It is fine, take your time to express as in any case it will come out consciously or unconsciously. It is bound to.
Sorry that am unable to communicate in the same language [mostly] but understanding each other is what matters.
Well, existence will be looking forward to your revelations when the time is ripe for you.
That which maybe a turning point in the history of evolution???
Take care.
Best Wishes.
Love & rgds

Of course. We understand each other; but in America, having an agenda is something of a "sacred truth" in that this is a nation of corporate greed and corporate law. As an American, I like to keep my agenda close to the surface to offset the assumption of a hidden agenda; otherwise we seem to speak clearly to each other.

And I'm insane. But I speak true when I say what I desire for myself is to speak most clearly of my love of my Gwynnies - that's the only "me" going on - that if "I" should be any part of history merely by revealing the inevitable - carve this on my tombstone:

That which loved Gwyneth Paltrow.

 

[imaginaryme]

Can I humbly suggest , less ranting and a more concise presentation of relevant points? especially on a fourm that is entitles science versus religion. I do appreciate poetry but usually when its presented as such .

Absolutely. But I'm a poet, and I rant; so no guarantees.

 

[ericoh2]

No I attacked Gurdjieffs ideas as you presented them, nothing to do with Wikipedia. I asked you several questions about these ideas and you didnt answer them. But Ill ask them again if you feel you can handle them this time :
why does the Eath's moon get its own Octave but Jupiter'r moons don't? Since the majority of the universe is dark matter where is its octave? Why have 8 layers at all? Why not 5 or 100?

And I as responded earlier to give a clear answer would take too much time. It's very hard to just pick out something here or there in Gurdjieff's teachings because much of it addresses multiple topics. Some of it appears metaphorical, some literal and it is still discussed in modern times as to which is which. First thing to remember is that Gurdjieff's number one concern was to "awaken man" everything else is secondary in his teachings. If you wish to get a better idea here are links discussing some of this:

G. I. Gurdjieff and His School

http://www.endlesssearch.co.uk/philo_cosmology.htm

 

[zenzero]

Friend ericoh2,

First thing to remember is that Gurdjieff's number on concern was to "awaken man"

True; what could any master do if someone does not wish to wake up HERE-NOW!

Love & rgds

 

[imaginaryme]

And the question is...

A recurring theme in biomimetic technology is that, pretty much whatever device we design, something in nature outperforms it in some way. This view has been reinforced with a recent Nature Photonics paper that takes a look at the optical performance of a Stomatopod crustacean's eye. In this case, the researchers weren't interested in color discrimination or sensitivity; rather, they wanted to find out just how good the mantis shrimp's polarization optics were.
~from A crustacean eye that rivals the best optical equipment

do we yet have an ear to hear? Do we actually find these creatures in nature, or is our technology predicated by these things in nature? Self-similarity to THE ALL; or, as previously stated, the existence of all concept continues to resonate...

And I spent all day thinking of how I slipped my moorings with the concept of entropic time; yet I find nothing in the literature to suggest patent absurdity, rather that the dualities of physics and mathematics seem to be calling out for two distinct timelike dimensions:

Einstein and his equivalence of inertial mass to gravitational mass, Heisenberg and his uncertainty of momentum and position, the wave and the particle, the quantum scale that refuses relativity, the relativistic scale that refuses the quantum... and the Hilbert Hotel.

I'm standing at the base of the mountain, looking up. Far greater mathematicians have called this peak infinite, but perhaps I know something greater in being lowly. I am standing at the base of this infinite mountain.

And one Sunday morning, way back when; another time when I did too much thinking, Gwynnie said, tell me a story. (Only when I have been up for many days... ) And I said, what is the difference between a ray and a line? Does the infinity of mr. line confer a greater status that that of mr. ray? And we took a long walk down the road of the infinite in the Arizona summer. Turning back towards home, we found; essentially, no...

 

[ericoh2]

Friend ericoh2,



True; what could any master do if someone does not wish to wake up HERE-NOW!

Love & rgds

Yes, any true spiritual teacher is really only concerned with the state in which his students exist. It does not matter whether they have any scientific knowledge at all. I refer to Ramana Maharishi, who was a very simple man yet had awakened. Some teachers have more of an ability to transfer information, we may call them Bodhisattvas. Some, however, have a personal understanding of their nature yet can not really transmit this knowledge. We may call them Arhatas. Gurdjieff did have somewhat of an ability to transfer his knowledge, so I feel he is very valuable to study. We must remeber that when trying to understand these individuals, many of their words may simply be to create a shock in order for us to gain a new understanding. Therefore we cannot read them as we do the works of Albert Einstein or any other scientific document for that matter.

 

[YmirGF]

First thing to remember is that Gurdjieff's number one concern was to "awaken man" everything else is secondary in his teachings.

I am more inclined to look upon Gurdjieff as a crafty charlatan myself. I see nothing in his work that warrants serious study, but to each his own.

 

[ericoh2]

I am more inclined to look upon Gurdjieff as a crafty charlatan myself. I see nothing in his work that warrants serious study, but to each his own.

You're apparently not alone in having this opinion. Honestly that's one of the things I love about him. It is said that he was a master at playing roles and shaping a persons view of him. Pretty much everyone has a different opinion about him and his work, so maybe his teachings can be useful to certain people and not to others. Whatever he was, I have found much wisdom in his teachings.

 

[skydivephil]

And I as responded earlier to give a clear answer would take too much time. It's very hard to just pick out something here or there in Gurdjieff's teachings because much of it addresses multiple topics. Some of it appears metaphorical, some literal and it is still discussed in modern times as to which is which. First thing to remember is that Gurdjieff's number one concern was to "awaken man" everything else is secondary in his teachings. If you wish to get a better idea here are links discussing some of this:

G. I. Gurdjieff and His School

Cosmology

If a clear answer to such a simple quetion would take too long, isn't more likely there is no clear answer and your guru doesnt actually know anything at all about the real properties of our universe?

 

[ericoh2]

If a clear answer to such a simple quetion would take too long, isn't more likely there is no clear answer and your guru doesnt actually know anything at all about the real properties of our universe?

What he teaches must be understood in it's proper context. This requires a different perception of reality than we are normally akin to. For this to occur one must study his system as a whole not bits and pieces. I do not think that Gurdjieff's understanding of science was in the same mold of a typical scientist but of a different character altogether. As I said, I was just giving another percpective to the thread. I'm not asking anyone to accept or believe anything but rather providing information.
I've given you a couple of links, so if you really care to get a better understanding you should read them. If not than maybe this is not something you are concerned with and that is your prerogative. If that's the case than continue on doing whatever you are doing if you feel that works for you.

 

[skydivephil]

What he teaches must be understood in it's proper context. This requires a different perception of reality than we are normally akin to. For this to occur one must study his system as a whole not bits and pieces. I do not think that Gurdjieff's understanding of science was in the same mold of a typical scientist but of a different character altogether. As I said, I was just giving another percpective to the thread. I'm not asking anyone to accept or believe anything but rather providing information.
I've given you a couple of links, so if you really care to get a better understanding you should read them. If not than maybe this is not something you are concerned with and that is your prerogative. If that's the case than continue on doing whatever you are doing if you feel that works for you.

Im curious then , what method do you use to wether your guru is correct or not?

 

[Mr Cheese]

If a clear answer to such a simple quetion would take too long, isn't more likely there is no clear answer and your guru doesnt actually know anything at all about the real properties of our universe?

the real properties of our universe....

and of course....
you assume you and the scientific model does....

kinda ironic there....

(I have the biggest stick
Your stick is smaller than mine
This means you are inferior to me
I win everything, because I am stickiest)
:beach:

 

[skydivephil]

the real properties of our universe....

and of course....
you assume you and the scientific model does....

kinda ironic there....

(I have the biggest stick
Your stick is smaller than mine
This means you are inferior to me
I win everything, because I am stickiest)
:beach:

i dont assume we have evidence for it. Forexample, would you say the relativistic time dilation is a real property of the universe or not ?

 

[Mr Cheese]

i dont assume we have evidence for it. Forexample, would you say the relativistic time dilation is a real property of the universe or not ?

no....



the map is not the territory

 

[skydivephil]

no....



the map is not the territory

Wow relativistic time dilation is not a real property of the universe? How do you explain the fact the decay of muons has been observed to slow down when they are accelerated then? Not only do they slow down , but they slow down by the exact rate that relativity predicts?

 

[ericoh2]

Im curious then , what method do you use to wether your guru is correct or not?

I really don't care much whether everything in a spiritual teaching is correct or not. In the sense you are speaking of it doesn't have to be. The real benefits I've received from the Gurdjieff's teachings have been through flashes of insights often provoked indirectly by some teaching or other. The teaching may prompt you to consider a possibility you never considered and in doing so you realize a different aspect of your nature. One of his techniques is called "self remembering" and if you work with this technique other realizations may occur. So this is how one should gauge the value of a spiritual teaching. Not in technicalities but through experience within oneself. The Gurdjieff ray of creation model has a role in this system but it's not in the way that a typical scientist would be likely to appreciate.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If a clear answer to such a simple quetion would take too long, isn't more likely there is no clear answer and your guru doesnt actually know anything at all about the real properties of our universe?

Profundity that can not be communicated clearly is generally a sign of confusion being misinterpreted as profundity. Unordered minds rarely have anything significant to convey.