More Freaky... Stuff.

[Gem]

It's something I tried before, and it's a very difficult thing to say, because the more explanation is made, the less clear it becomes... as what I'm explaining has no form, so any shape I give it, becomes less to do with what it is.

Why then do I say anything? Oh I have the gift of gab, so who better to say what is hardest of all?

There is a thing called Sacred Geometry, but forget all that, what good are shapes going to do, except represent principles, yet, this is why shape is so important, it tells sign of what's behind them, and this is what I'm discussing: what's behind.

As a preliminary, so as to invoke the sense of this subject, a small mental experiment can be done by asking, where is this awareness arizing from? Wherefrom is it exuded?

Yes, a difficult subject, though I'm sure minds are leaping to find a profound and indelibly obscure thought, to demonstrate enlightenment, but this is not a comedy thread, my friends. It's vewy vewy sewious.

If I write more it's like WALL OF TEXT, so enough, I don't want to be a bore.

[Lynn]

Hello

Oh my.....what be honestly wrong with a wall of text....if that text has something to offer one to ponder.

When it comes to Sacred Geometry it might be simply a different way of showing or even teaching what some might learn better from that mere words alone. We know well that we have our ways we learn....and to some that is visual to other's that is oral and to other that be WALLS OF TEXT.

I recently was part if a discussion group on the Mer-Ka-Ba and I was honestly surprised at HOW few very spiritually learned people did not even know this term or concept existed. The discussion was laid out in such a way that we felt that the concept was one at least heard of....but we soon had to get out pen and paper and the drawing board ( Literally ) so show what we were talking about. Bringing things at times down to the base level is the best way to explain something.

There are many that have come to find that the still waters of me run very deeply in what I know and understand but I walk in a place of comfort for me. Year's ago I left that 'Book Worm" image if me behind.....the bun in the hair and glasses vanished....to find that honestly we are all ready "Enlightened" and enlightenment is a concept not maybe a comand.


Lynn

[Gem]

How one explains something is pretty important, and it isn't a matter of what sounds most mystical is wisest. Often an exact explanation isn't possible, so the nature of the communication creates a 'feel for it'.

I need to refer to a man named George Spencer Brown. He wrote a book called the Laws of Form, which detailed a 'calculus of indications' (as it was called). It was a mathematical masterpiece, but not well accepted by academia. Moreso, it was considered a remarkable novelty, was harshly critisized by some and highly praised by others...

It told of how seperations in space create relationships that are the nature of form, not a flight of spiritual fancy, but in very rigourous terms.

"Unfortunately, we find systems of education today which have departed so far from the plain truth, that they now teach us to be proud of what we know and ashamed of ignorance ... [this puts] up an effective barrier against any advance upon what is already known, since it makes one ashamed to look beyond the bonds imposed by one's ignorance." (from Appendix 1, Laws of Form, George Spencer Brown.)

What I'm discussing is... distinctions. Relationships between the distinct 'things' and how these relationships are the substructure of shape.

Eg (just to get the feel for it), the intelligent distinction is made beween 'space above' and 'space below'... so above and below is the meaning of that relationship. That distinction (and relationship) is an example to illustrate the substructure of shape...

But I have to take one step back for there... to before any defined comparison can be made... before above and below even started forming it's meaning at all (which I'll do in the next post.)

1. having trouble making the connection between shapes and principles

2. I empathize: trying to find the proper language in a material-based reality for incorporeal principles and truths is incredibly hard. I think this is why metaphoric language is helpful, sort of a stepping stone for maintaining truth value from matter-based existence to abstract reality with as little loss as possible???

[Gem]

Originally Posted by nancyboy

1. having trouble making the connection between shapes and principles

2. I empathize: trying to find the proper language in a material-based reality for incorporeal principles and truths is incredibly hard. I think this is why metaphoric language is helpful, sort of a stepping stone for maintaining truth value from matter-based existence to abstract reality with as little loss as possible???

Yes indeed, metaphoric language.

When I read my own post that mentioned principles of shape I also thought it was hard to understand, but I'm resisting wall of text syndrome.

Let us go back to this interdefined 'above and below'... it's not really a shape is it? just a space 'above' and a space 'below'. It's merely the principle of shape.

In fact a shape does begin to materialize, because there needs to be an indicator between above and below, a line needs to be made to seperate the space above it from that below it, so this relationship does begins to form a shape; a line in this case.

I accept the core of this discussion can not be told outright, so at best, I can invoke a 'feel for it'...

[Gem]

Yep... have to go back, but not yet. First summarize the concept so far.

A distinction is made which separates space, thus making a space 'above' and a space 'below'. This distinction begins to form a shape, which in thois example is a line seperating the two. The shape is the symbol which carries the meaning as it is used to define both 'above' and 'below'.

Conclusion: shape defines the nature of the distinction, It's the meaning.

[Gem]

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/ns...ion-of-pi.html

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Gem

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/2011/03/a-musical-interpretation-of-pi.html

I hope you liked the music.

I think it's time to go back now, and that's where it gets freaky.

Lets start with the above/below model (which is given meaning by a line which defines both.)

What we have is not a duality here, it's a three part model: 1) Space 'above'. 2) Space 'below'. 3) Line 'between'.

Now lets subtract one element so we are left with two. No matter which of these three we take away, we are left with no shape at all, just the space.

Remember we only removed one part from the three, so we are left with two, yet also, we are left with one single space.

That brings us to a primary distinction, the observation of space... and the quandry that the space is in both a singular and a dual state... simultaneously.

The very act of observation inevitably creates a distinction, but the mind can not define that duality, so what appears to it is emptiness.

What we have to do is incorporate an imaginary factor, a manifest form, a shape, and that provides a definition; a meaning for the distinction...

Above and below do not give meaning to eachother, the shape (line) which manifests between them determines the nature of that distinction... and the way we see life (our attitude) is relected in shapes that define our distinction/s, so the meaning of life is largely determined by how you see it.

[Xan]

My relationship with sacred geometry is not thinking about it much, but looking and feeling the subtle effects.


Xan

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Xan

My relationship with sacred geometry is not thinking about it much, but looking and feeling the subtle effects.


Xan

You don't really understand what I'm saying, because your response isn't related to it, does not inquire into it, does it elaborate on it nor reflect it in any way.