February 5, 2009
- Space Fire -
Found this recently, although I can’t remember where. Perhaps one of the people I’m following on tumblr..? (feel free to drop your name in the comments if you think it was you, I’ll credit accordingly!)
Anyway, it’s “A comparison between a flame on Earth and a flame in a microgravity environment.”:
Yeah, cool picture. So what’s ‘the point’?
Well, flame has long been consider an symbol of creativity, assertiveness, and will power. It’s associated with the wands suite in tarot, and it might also be seen as the original spark of mankind’s dominance over nature. After all, it was fire that gave us the ability to cook food, keep away predators, and burn up underbrush (making travel, and therefore communication, much easier).
But it can be dangerous too. It’s what Prometheus brought us from the gods, and look what happened to him:
And it was tongues of flame that descended on the disciples at Pentecost after Christ was crucified.
Whether it’s a Titan or a Son of God, it seems someone’s always had to suffer in order to bring down the holy fires…
So then, what conclusions can be drawn from the effect of weightlessness on that candle flame?
Well, the difference between the two flames is that the yellow flame on the left is subject to gravity’s influence, while the blue flame on the right is not. And we first have to ask: To what can we liken gravity?
Wikipedia describes gravity as: “a natural phenomenon by which objects with mass attract one another”. And yet, in the very next sentence, it is described as “the agency which lends weight to objects with mass.” So mass, by itself, is kind of useless, unless there’s some other mass upon which it can act.
But if there is another mass, both of the masses act upon each other, and this gives them both “weight”. And weight is a measurement of the speed at which each is attracted to the other.
So what causes that attraction?
Here’s how Sir Issac Newton felt about it:
“That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one another, is to me so great an absurdity that, I believe, no man who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking could ever fall into it.”
Well, since science is not too helpful, lets look at this a little more poetically. What seems to be the symbolic difference to be between the two flames?
To me, the one under the sway of gravity is standing upright, burning brightly, and so suggests a certain healthiness. It seems livelier.
The flame in the ‘microgravity environment’ is spherical, suggesting a kind of perfection. Yet, it doesn’t have the same range of color and, seemingly, would not have the same range of movement as the flickering, gravity-bound flame on the left. The purely blue flame is still, lacking movement.
Wikipedia tells us that this is because: “In microgravity or zero gravity environment, such as on a circular orbit , convection no longer occurs and the flame becomes spherical, with a tendency to become bluer and more efficient.”
More efficient… Because there’s no longer any convection causing the soot to rise to the top of a flame, turning the flame from blue to yellow as the soot trails away. In zero gravity, any soot is burned off equally in all directions, and therefore, it cannot be seen and has no effect on the flame.
But when a flame burns within gravity, the soot is moved away from the source of the heat in a singular direction, making it much more observable. This is caused by the attractive force between the flame and the earth, as it pulls the source of flame down towards a union with the earth.
Gravity is something we struggle against. It’s the thing that forces us to keep our feet on the ground, the thing that makes us trip when we’re not paying attention. Without gravity, we’d be able to fly.
But without gravity, we’d never be able to stop floating away either. In the perfect sphere of flame, in the heaven of zero gravity, there’s no involuntary attraction or movement. No connection, no convection.
And with no convection, how would we know where the soot was?
Neat post. Gravity, a strange blessing and a curse… without it, no stars, no nothing…
*
In physics, objects in a gravitational field are considered to have a /negative/ energy. (That’s why things fall down a ‘gravitational well’, to get to states of lower energy.) Conversely, Einstein says that all mass has an intrinsic energy E=mc^2. *There is a theory* that says that the energy of all the matter in the universe has been ‘paid for’, and is cancelled out exactly, by all the negative gravitational energy in the universe. Cool, huh? Makes my head spin… :-)
*
‘In Relativity, Matter tells Space how to curve, and Space tells Matter how to move.’ – Douglas Adams
Comment by speedbird — February 8, 2009 @ 3:56 pm
Very cool.
If the mass is moving at the speed of light through time-space, then this makes sense. If we cancel out that effect, then things falling down a gravitational well can have a negative due to gravity, while maintaining the inherent E=mc^2 quality as well.
Something like a red decoder lens: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3261/2643541551_9b6686c41e.jpg?v=0
Once the red (ie: the universe’s movement through time) is taken away, we can see the negative effect of gravity. But we don’t notice the red, because we’re traveling at that speed as well.
Does this make sense? Am I talking BS? Well, I am talking BS, but maybe it makes sense anyway? :)
Anyway, it makes my head spin as well. The magnitude of the things we claim we know based only on observations of tendencies. It’s awesome.
Comment by Ian — February 9, 2009 @ 2:23 pm
What a brilliant post, a very thought provoking set of connections. My compliments! And I love the opening flame picture, I’ve never seen that before.
Rob
Comment by Rob Bryanton — February 9, 2009 @ 5:18 pm
Hey, thanks Rob, I greatly appreciate the compliments, especially coming from you. It was your work on the 10 dimensions that kind of kick-started a lot of my work here!
Yeah, that flame picture’s awesome, and it started me off on a whole line of reasoning that turned out to be much longer than I had expected. I had originally thought this was going to be more of a “check out this cool picture I found” kind of post!
Comment by Ian — February 9, 2009 @ 5:57 pm
> If the mass is moving at the speed of light through time-space, then this makes sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-momentum
In four dimensions (!) the energy associated with the mass by E=mc^2 behaves like it’s momentum of the mass as it moves through time. Way cool. There are all sorts of similar correspondences for other quantities, lending support to a four-dimensional interpretation of spacetime. Except you’ll notice the minus sign on that wiki page: ‘distances’ in time always add with the opposite sense to distances in space. Pythagoras knew that ‘the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides’. What he didn’t know was that, if one of the sides is time-like, the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the /difference/ in the squares on the other two sides!… Time is not like space. In fact it behaves like the difference between real (space-like) and imaginary (time-like) numbers. We appear to live in a universe of three space-like (real) dimensions and one time-like (imaginary) dimension. When physicists postulate extra dimensions they have to say if they’re space-like or time-like.
I’m not sure anyone knows /why/ this is so. The power of relatively simple college-level mathematical structures to describe enormous complicated things like, hey, the shape of space (!!) is endlessly fascinating and a little bit scary.
Comment by speedbird — February 10, 2009 @ 4:37 am
Hey, Speedbird, have you read the Dancing Wu li Masters?
I just started it. Well anyway, what you just said is easier for me to understand than the Wiki page. But I think I am in kindergarten with this stuff. But kindergarteners are really excited!
Comment by Ted — February 10, 2009 @ 10:35 am
Reading this again, I am struck with some stuff I read by Rudolph Steiner and recently Michael Topper.
You know like Steiner had Lucifer pulling us up and Ahriman pulling us down. So then we were able to walk straight ahead.
Topper was talking about the Phi ratio in relation to the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system.
I guess also with this flame idea you can look at Karl Popper and thermodynamics.
I think what you are doing here is mapping out the Universe in terms of metaphysics and quantum physics. Which is what every Mystic has to do eventually. I mean this is important stuff here. The purpose of existence.
Comment by Ted — February 10, 2009 @ 10:49 am
Here is the link for Michael Topper:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/topper/topper19.htm
Especially down near the bottom is what I am talking about. To me Topper is a bridge between, Eastern philosophy and Western Christian traditions like Gnosticism. Because Good and evil is a point of contention between the two. I mean Philip K Dick definately incorporated spiritual evil into his philosophy.
But at the end of this peice Topper really harmonizes the two. I know you aren’t getting into moral type stuff here, but I do see what you are talking about as a dynamic tension. There are all these dynamic tensions and dualities working together to form reality as we know it.
Comment by Ted — February 10, 2009 @ 10:58 am
@ Speedbird: Wow. Those equations on the wiki page are intense. I’m not sure I’m understanding the difference between space-like distance and time-like distance. Could it have something to do with the way we measure distance? I’ll have to look into it more…
This is what I get for spending Pre-Calculus programming video games into my graphing calculator… ;)
(I almost had a working version of Space Invaders going, and then someone stole my calculator…)
@Ted:
I was so excited as a little kid that I got held back in pre-school. Two years of schooling before Kindergarten for me… Unfortunately, I remember nothing but robots and dinosaurs.
But yeah, I’m definitely trying to find parallels between metaphysics and quantum physics type stuff. I’m mostly mining quantum physics for metaphors that might prove useful in reprogramming the way I interpret reality.
But I’m not assuming any direct connection between the two necessarily, since I don’t know enough about the physics part. Wouldn’t want to be accused of being some kind of nut who was misappropriating physics! ;)
I’ll have to read that Michael Topper stuff later, but that good/evil thing is a good point. I think there’s a correlation here between the two trees in the Garden of Eden:
Tree 1: Good and Evil
Tree 2: Eternal Life
The symbols encoded in that little story are pretty intense. They suggest a polar relationship that’s a step higher than good/evil. It’s more digital/analog than anything else. “Tat Tvam Asi”…
And we “fell from grace” when we ate from the tree of the (digital) knowledge of good and evil, “this” and “that”…
Personally, I think morals are better looked at as highly evolved survival strategies. They’re how you get everyone’s needs met at the same time…
Comment by Ian — February 10, 2009 @ 12:54 pm
Hey, if you remember robots and dinosaurs, you prety much got it.
Comment by Ted — February 12, 2009 @ 10:17 am
Fire as original spark of mankind’s dominance over nature?
One Harvard Scientist Agrees! ;)
Comment by Ian — February 13, 2009 @ 10:03 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus
Also ‘The Post-Modern Prometheus’, possibly /the/ most memorable of ‘X-Files’ episodes ;-D
*
I’m not sure I actually /understand/ the difference between space-like distance and time-like distance! But as far as I can tell, time-like distance is subtractive, so you can have events that are separate in both space and time but which are actually simultaneous, ///from the point of view of light///. It’s like the Universe is stitched together with electromagnetism…
Been thinking about McLuhan and telephones. You know how sometimes you think about someone, and the phone rings, and there they are? It suddenly occurs to me that that’s just exactly the nature of the medium, right there… /that’s/ ‘electric speed’ …
*
Ted -
> Hey, if you remember robots and dinosaurs, you prety much got it.
Brilliant, :-D
Comment by speedbird — February 14, 2009 @ 3:03 pm
Holy shit speedbird… You’re on fire today. That wikipedia link is awesome as well, for this part in particular.
You’re right on about McLuhan and the telephone, and of course, the psychic telephone connection brings in Rupert Sheldrake as well! (anything to add Ted? I seem to remember you being a fan of Sheldrake’s work).
Kind of makes me wonder if any connections can be made between “the medium is the message” and Sheldrakes morphic resonance fields… media being a way to shorten the learning curve of our morphic resonance fields…
As for the X Files quote, that is supremely awesome. I’m still not quite sure I understand the difference, but it seems like a REALLY IMPORTANT thing, so understanding should come gradually… But if the whole universe is stitched together out of electromagnetism, then what does that say about consciousness?
Comment by Ian — February 14, 2009 @ 3:49 pm
> between “the medium is the message” and Sheldrakes morphic resonance fields
Good one, yeah, hadn’t spotted that but you’re probably right!
> But if the whole universe is stitched together out of electromagnetism, then what does that say about consciousness?
This is where the whole quantum entanglement thing really starts to get people going. An entangled system behaves like it’s one particle, but extended over space (and time?). Einstein’s distances in spacetime don’t /appear/ to apply any more, at least at a first reading of the situation. So what’s going on? Well, it certainly begs the question ‘what do we really mean by a “particle”?’ Or even a point in space.
The other thing is that this is intimately tied up with is the concept of ‘quantum computing’. It’s generally believed that there’s a class of problems called ‘NP’ that can’t be solved by computer. There’s an associated theory that explains the difficulty of AI as being due to the brain NOT being a computer. Well, what is it? It’s generally thought that if you can make a quantum computer, it’ll be qualitatively different from an ordinary computer, because it’ll be able to have a crack at NP problems. The next tentative link in the chain is that the brain might also rely on non-local entanglement and coherent computation and, in effect, be a quantum computer. If this turns out to be true then all bets in the history of philosophy, science, engineering and AI are officially off…
Comment by speedbird — February 15, 2009 @ 6:59 am
I have been following this conversation with interest…So could you expound on what those bets are and why they are off?
Comment by Ted — February 15, 2009 @ 7:13 pm
Hi Ted,
Dammit, knew someone would call me out on that… :-)
Actually I think it’s a massive subject and probably I ought to get myself one of these new-fangled weblog-thingies rather than occupy so much of Ian’s kindly-donated bandwidth. But anyhoo.
Basically I get this feeling that quantum computation is going to be the Next Big Thing. It seems to have a surprisingly low profile in the ‘mainstream media’, but has the potential to change so many things. It’s like the place where digital meets analogue. A computing machine breaks a problem down into steps and does them really quickly in sequence. A quantum computer swallows the problem whole and does it all at once, rendering certain applications of machine computation immediately obsolete.
But that’s just the start. To get your head round this stuff a lot of old stuff has to go. Einstein says we’re intimately tied up with whatever we see when we look out the window (it’s called our ‘light cone’). But that’s just a snapshot of the Universe, a slice through space and time. Throw quantum entanglement in the mix and it starts to look like we’re tied up with all sorts of other slices as well. The ‘particles’ of quantum theory really can be in several places at once; they ain’t ‘particles’ any more, they’re very definitely extended in space. Some traditional interpretations of quantum theory and relativity start to look cumbersome and indeed flakey. Mind you, we knew that already, as they’re two valid but incompatible ways of understanding the universe, so this is probably a good thing. Gonna hurt tho.
Then there’s the circumstantial evidence that says that this stuff is essential to understanding the mind. That in general I think is a good thing cos all the computational models of intelligence leave me really cold. But what form this will take I don’t know. Might be a kind of worldwide enlightenment. Might be a hell of enforced servitude.
So, yeah, I guess that’s a pretty big gamut of guesses to play with… :-)
Comment by speedbird — February 16, 2009 @ 5:34 am
cool. I like that solving problems all at once!
I follow you.
Comment by Ted — February 16, 2009 @ 1:08 pm
I am thinking western hierarchical category making might go by the wayside too. If problems are looked at holistically.
Comment by Ted — February 16, 2009 @ 1:10 pm
Yeah! This is something I’ve been thinking about too. That all this AI, quantum technology, all the IT stuff, is just our way of building a model of the brain, in a sort of unconscious attempt to understand it. It’s a case of psychological projection, we’re projecting what’s inside of us out onto technology…
Oh, and with conversations like this, you guys can take up all the bandwidth you want! However, if the “real” Speedbird wanted to set up a blog, I’d be one of the first to set it up on my RSS reader. ;)
As for quantum computing, I’m not sure how to take this, but a recent article on physorg seemed to throw a wrench into the works… Check this out and let me know what you think: http://www.physorg.com/news152899335.html
If I’m understanding it correctly, it means that entanglement doesn’t last as long as we thought it did, that it’s kind of a temporary thing that can’t be regained once it’s lost. If that’s the case, then what causes it to begin with? My bet is consciousness, observation. The same thing that collapses waves functions down into specific particles is also what entangles those particles together.
This is probably how emotions AND memories work too. Maybe I’m getting ahead of myself here, but I’m trying to cast out a wide net…
Exactly what I’m talking about, quantum entanglement, if it’s something that can just fade away, is exactly how we tie ourselves up with all sorts of other slices!
Also, if the brain is a quantum computer, and quantum computers can solve whole problems all at once, what does that say about the potential of the human brain? Maybe “solving the problem all at once” is what we’ve called “downloading information” in the past (here and on Tim’s site)… I know my ideas seem to come to me all at once, and I only have to break them down into language in order to properly understand/communicate them.
If it’s not worldwide enlightenment, I’ll be very surprised. :)
Comment by Ian — February 16, 2009 @ 8:03 pm
> I am thinking western hierarchical category making might go by the wayside too.
Yeah, quite possibly! To be replaced by…?
> … a recent article on physorg …
Cool article, thanx. Indeed, there are very, very strange and unknown things going on here and it looks like these guys have just noticed another one. I like their ‘dead is dead’ line, like a kind of biological extinction. It may indeed be that there’s something fundamental putting a limit on the capabilities of quantum computing, but no-one really knows what it is yet.
> what causes it to begin with? My bet is consciousness, observation.
But what constitutes consciousness & observation? Theory says that this stuff is going on whether or not there are humans to do the observing… what’s that telling us about the universe?
> is exactly how we tie ourselves up with all sorts of other slices
Probably. But I think there’s also an opening here to ‘The Secret’-type-thinking, so caveat emptor.
> what does that say about the potential of the human brain?
I reckon that a lot of ‘unconscious’ thought, where ideas come from, is of this type. Computers are indeed ‘thinking’ machines… but they’ve got a hollow core inside them. They have no (or fairly limited) unconscious.
> If it’s not worldwide enlightenment, I’ll be very surprised.
Yes, but there are quite definitely forces in the world that oppose this, and with which we trifle at our peril.
Comment by speedbird — February 17, 2009 @ 4:37 am
Yeah, thanks for the reminders Speedbird.
I tend to be a little blind to the problems inherent in “The Secret” type thinking, although I do readily agree that the problems are there! The thing is, The Secret people believe we’re all completely in control of what we think. Hence, “you can think yourself into a better life”, or whatever those people say.
But a long time ago, Buddha pointed out that that’s not true (and Freud reminded us again fairly recently, in a manner more friendly to the Western mind). The unconscious definitely has a lot to do with this, because although “The Secret” is a crock, we do still manage to get what we want sometimes, so perhaps there is some kind of “Secret” effect at work behind the scenes anyway…
I also agree that our unconscious is probably a lot more in touch with these kinds of quantum entanglement type things than we’re aware of, so perhaps a quantum computer would end up moving computers beyond the “thinking machine” stage. Or perhaps we just need to stop thinking that our conscious mind has all the answers!
Really, we’re blindingly fumbling around in the dark, with all this stuff, and I just wish more people could keep that in mind, both because it stops us from being overly stupid, and because it reminds us that there’s always a lot more to find out and make adjustments for…
But when it comes to these other “dark” (as in evil) kinds of forces, I’m hoping they end up contributing to this mass-enlightenment anyway, just without being aware that they’re doing it! ;)
(which is not to say that we still shouldn’t keep a close eye on things to make sure they don’t fuck it all up…)
Comment by Ian — February 17, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
I think they (dark forces) contribute to it. Like for example, Cheetahs used to live in the Americas. Now they are extinct here but we still have pronghorn antelope that evolved tghe ability to run 60 mph to escape them.
Comment by Ted — February 17, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
Yeah, that’s what I’m thinking too Ted. The only problem with that is if the antelope had given up, because it thought the lion was too powerful… So we have to keep going!
Comment by Ian — February 17, 2009 @ 2:22 pm
I think, the law of attraction is real, tho. Its just that its not the only law.
Comment by Ted — February 17, 2009 @ 10:28 pm
I think the ‘dark forces’ are a actually a (misguided) subset of things that are actually /essential/ to this work, and that they constitute various kinds of flawed vision, like a kind of beam-in-the-eye. If you’re gonna conceive of a better world, you’d better be jolly sure you’ve got a clear view of what ‘better’ means.
Comment by speedbird — February 18, 2009 @ 8:15 am
That’s what I try to figure out, when I become aware of something that’s “dark” in nature. What processes are at work here, and why are they “allowed” to exist?
(whether that’s through allowed by evolution or by “God’s Will” is not really a relevant difference here, and this is a trend I am betting will become more and more common…)
I can often come up with an example of how those same processes are just as useful for really good ends (be that compassion, or enlightenment or whatever) Can’t think of any examples of course. But we need more people using things for good ends, just to remind us all that it’s possible.
Comment by Ian — February 18, 2009 @ 11:23 am
If you ever get around to reading that Topper link, that was one of his main esoteric works, describing evil.
For me, he pretty much clinched it. It started with creation and its the aspect of creation that wants to control things. Control the rest of creation. Its hierarchical control. There is a being at the Apex of this pyramid that is a tiny little point in space, that wants to control all of creation.
The opposite of this is kind of live and let live, seeking harmony with other beings while letting them be free.
Comment by Ted — February 18, 2009 @ 1:23 pm
Huh. Yeah, that sounds good…
You’ve caught me though, I haven’t had a chance to read it yet. My backlog of stuff to read (both online and in books) grows day by day…
Comment by Ian — February 18, 2009 @ 2:23 pm
No worries…You are on the right trafck though I think with the gravity stuff. Think of evil as a black hole and good as a star…
Comment by Ted — February 18, 2009 @ 3:28 pm
So like you were saying, we are flames. I like to think of predators as editors.
Comment by Ted — February 18, 2009 @ 3:32 pm
I like that, predators as editors.
But for the black hole being a metaphor for evil, I don’t know. I’ve been thinking of a black hole as a metaphor for an enlightened consciousness, that’s reached a level of “I-Am-ness” where the “I” has completely collapses in on itself, leaving only emptiness…
But then, evil is greedy, so maybe that works too. I haven’t ironed out all the details on that one yet! :)
Comment by Ian — February 18, 2009 @ 4:25 pm
Well, inside a black hole things might be similar to how things were before the “big bang” before creation. In Topper’s thesis, this is what evil wants to return to.
In a sense the opposite of evil is adventure. Losing oneself in the moment. Exploring… trying new things, creating new things… Evil wants to swallow all of creation into itself and go back to sleep. So the project to bring this about is to bring all of creation under centralized command and control. Only the being at the Apex is fully aware that this is for the purpose of creating a massive implosion. Lower level beings just think ts about power.
So anyway, you have this dynamic tension between good and evil, which is one of the polarities that creates reality. The force that wants to continually create and harmonize new types of diversity, vs. the force that wants to bring everything under central control.
Comment by Ted — February 18, 2009 @ 10:01 pm
Man, we’re in deep here… beginning to get a bit scary. Gotta be very careful with the abyss-staring thing, easily gets out of hand.
Black holes first; I’ll come to the whole starbucks-coffee-cup thing later. Current thinking as I understand it is that black holes ain’t so black. There’s no real ‘inside’ and nothing ever actually goes in. In fact, everything that goes in comes out, just scrambled up a bit (OK, a lot). Not sure if that has any deeper meaning tho.
Considering dark controlling things, not necessarily ‘evil’ per se; I think a lot of this is stuff we do to ourselves and which we have the power to undo (though the mechanism is obviously non-obvious… if you see what I mean).
The ‘use’ of things for good isn’t as simple as that; the ‘use’ of a medium is inherent in the medium. You can’t ‘use’ a medium differently; you have to reach in and change the medium. To do that you first have to see the beggar clearly, which is also a non-trivial task.
So anyway my take on this is that one of the great Media is this ability we have to collect stuff together and name it and organise it. Call it ‘language’. It allows us to make sense of the world. And it can reflect real structures in the Universe. But it can also get easily out of hand. Creating hierarchies can start to be an ego trip and reflect nothing but the will of the organiser. Too much sense can start to confuse. (There’s an ironical quip in engineering circles on these lines ‘standards are good, let’s have lots of them’.) And hierarchies start to look like onions where you can’t see the insides from the outsides and vice-versa. And somewhere in that massive onion of concepts are some true and good concepts that reflect the truth of the Universe. They’re scared silly and they need our help.
Comment by speedbird — February 19, 2009 @ 6:25 am
Well, there is a reason Michael Topper’s esoteric writings on the nature of evil aren’t just a few sentences long, like my comments.
Anyway the idea of the Black hole is my analogy, not his.
But, the thing about “the will of the organizer” is how evil operates IMO. An analogy Micheal topper uses is that Creation is like a Mother having two children, one is fearful and the other is adventurous. The fearful one wants to hold the Mother Captive so she will never leave him. That is the Motivation behind evil.
Another theory is By this guy Drunvalo Maelchizedek that different beings want to create worlds with free will and to have free will ( in the sense they want) you can’t have love, because love constrans you to do certain things. The pattern of creation follows love so if you love you can’t avoid obeying God. So anyway though, God allows Lucifer (the latest in a serries of beings to attempt this) to try out his program. Because… whatever…
I am not so sold on that one.
But anyway, I think their is a certain flavor associated with evil. I think its a real thing that is in operation. You can say its ignorance, but I don’t think that is an adequate explanation. There is a difference between seriously dedicated really really strong willed ignorance like a massive program that is being undertaken, with eyes pretty much open and simply being mistaken about something. Its a type of polarization. In a way maybe they know its doomed to failure but its not the same as just being uneducated about something.
Comment by Ted — February 19, 2009 @ 9:10 am
Weather or not black holes are implosions, I guess is debatable, but having a massive implosion, is what Topper said was the motivation behind evil. The idea of swallowing all of creation into itself.
Comment by Ted — February 19, 2009 @ 9:11 am
I think the thing is to collapse the abyss in on itself, to stop it from getting bigger. See where it overlaps and can be combined, to stop it from getting out of hand… But yeah, it can be dangerous indeed.
Anyway, this:
is awesome. I had no idea, but it does make a lot of sense. As far as I know, nobody had any idea what was inside a blackhole, other than A PORTAL TO ANOTHER DIMENSION!!!!!!1!1!!!
The “media” of language….
Check this physorg article from today. I plan on doing a post about it at some point, but those lucky readers who dig into the comments can check it out first. Speedbird, I’m pretty sure it’ll blow your mind! ;)
Ted:
I think that evilness of the will of the organizer is dependent on the desire behind that will-to-organize. If the organization is for the betterment of everybody, an attempt to create improvements all around, then that will lead to good result.
But the will to organize so that the organization can then be forgotten about, is evil. I think that’s the “implosion” that Topper’s talking about, something similar to Freud’s Death-Drive, the desire for the ending of all stimulation of the senses (in the context of this discussion, this is accomplished by putting everything “in it’s place”)
I think the key is if the organizer understands that it is attached to the organization. If you see yourself as just a part of the organization, and that the health of the organization represents it’s ability to sustain you and everyone involved, then it’s not so bad.
But if you see yourself as apart from the organization, and that it’s a system you put into play only to benefit from it’s fruits (a more machine like way of looking at reality), then things can get pretty bad before you notice (or care)…
And really, the entire world is already an “organization” that works like this. The ego is the CEO that can’t see that it’s existence is dependent on the health and wellbeing of the reality around it.
Also, I finally read that Topper link you sent, and it seemed the key concepts are good, but that it’s kind of overly complicated. But I’m writing something up on that too, so I won’t say too much on that now.
Plus I am highly skeptical of anything associated with the Pleiades, since (I think) the Pleiades entered the New Age mindset from Laura Knight-Jadczyk. Or am I mixing up my crazy western gurus?
Anyway, I don’t really put much faith in channeled information (which is what LKJ gets from the Pleiades, I believe). Why knowingly let something else between yourself and reality, when all true knowledge comes from direct study of reality? Why do we need aliens to explain how our souls work? Sounds kind of lazy to me…
Comment by Ian — February 19, 2009 @ 3:07 pm
Jesus, I am wordy today…
Anyway, just wanted to add that Drunvalo Maelchizedek’s take on this, as you explain it, seems pretty good to me. In that “good” is associated with the recognition that action must be constrained by “love” because action always takes place within reality.
And actually, is there any way of having “free will” if that “free will” is separate from the constraints of reality? The distinction there seems to be a sloppy one: “I’ll only accept the parts of reality that allow me to get/do what I want, but I willingly choose to ignore those that ‘stand in my way’”.
As if anyone had any true understanding of why they want what they want anyway…
Comment by Ian — February 19, 2009 @ 3:12 pm
he didn’t have any association with Laura whatserface as far as I know…she just kind of pulled his stuff up from the net and paraphrased it.
Comment by Ted — February 19, 2009 @ 7:00 pm
The physorg article is well cool. Gonna go read it again!
> But the will to organize so that the organization can then be forgotten about, is evil.
This sounds right on the nail. Think I need time for that to sink in, if I’m understanding it correctly (can you elaborate)? It’s got me that deep down excited intuition feel going. What exactly is the drive to forget about the organization?
Comment by speedbird — February 20, 2009 @ 4:42 am
Laziness…?
Comment by Ted — February 20, 2009 @ 12:26 pm
I’m going to write up something on this, cause I keep finding more and more links on this today. Stay tuned…
And yes, Ted, laziness is definitely a part of it, but laziness in itself is not really so bad. It’s more the willful choice and pursuit of laziness as an actual goal, rather than as a stop along the way. The Sabbath’s only one day of the week, so to speak…
Comment by Ian — February 20, 2009 @ 2:17 pm