Page 4 of 6

Re: conventional scientific constants are always changing

Posted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 9:29 pm
by MrTwig
daniel wrote:There is a good deal of truth to that. I'm your "mountain man" type, and spend a lot of time in the wilderness. I have never worn a watch; I work to Nature's schedule. One of the first things you find out in Nature is that Nature ignores man's "schedules." The length of the day varies; when you're in Nature, you get up with the sun, and go to bed shortly after dark. You do less in the winter (shorter days), and more in the summer. When it rains, you do something inside; when it's nice, you do something outside. What I've found from working in remote areas over the years, is that you make an internal list of "things to do," then do the one that works best with the current conditions. Here in the Old West, they call it "Indian time"--you get there, when you get there, as you can never tell what may happen along the way.
That is the rhythm of life is it not? I can't wear a watch either. Too confining.
I believe we all want to be more natural in some way or another. Is it possible to be truthful to other wishes? When does too much knowledge blind you to reality? When does ask a simple question make it impossible to grasp eternal concepts. Who decides what is best? Where do we draw the line? Every answer that I've heard just bring another question to mind. Where does it all end? If it doesn't, then what is the point of learning anything? I feel as if I am going in circles. Maybe that is a good thing!

Re: conventional scientific constants are always changing

Posted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 10:38 pm
by maeghan
MrTwig wrote: That is the rhythm of life is it not? I can't wear a watch either. Too confining.
I believe we all want to be more natural in some way or another. Is it possible to be truthful to other wishes? When does too much knowledge blind you to reality? When does ask a simple question make it impossible to grasp eternal concepts. Who decides what is best? Where do we draw the line? Every answer that I've heard just bring another question to mind. Where does it all end? If it doesn't, then what is the point of learning anything? I feel as if I am going in circles. Maybe that is a good thing!
Maybe this is just it, maybe that is why we all feel like there is something in the horizon. I've never worn a watch, my mom bought me plenty when i was a kid. But I didn't like wearing them.

We are gifted with the time that we are experiencing right now, since I was a child I I've known this.

Things keep getting curiouser and curiouser! ... says the white rabbit.

Re: conventional scientific constants are always changing

Posted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 10:50 pm
by maeghan
daniel wrote: Larson calls the waking world of our conventional experience, the "time-space region." Everybody else calls it "space/time." It was a poor choice on Larson's part, as it makes the RS more confusing! He also did the same thing with "charge," where is natural charges are backwards from the observed ones since he considers "time" to be positive, and everyone else treats it as negative. With that in mind:

Space/time (s/t, speed), Larson's time-space region, is the waking world of our conventional experience. The concept of a "separation" is determined by distance.

Time/space (t/s, energy), Larson's space-time region, is the "metaphysical" or unconscious realm of 3D time. Separation here is determined by duration.
Thank you, you've helped clear this up for me. Language, the tower of babel ... errrr. ;)

Re: conventional scientific constants are always changing

Posted: Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:05 am
by Gadhai
daniel wrote:
Now if you want a really interesting meditation, take the "reciprocal" and see if you can intuit clock space as a survival function of the Anima--what is clock space providing for a predictive function to your "soul"?

Gadhai wrote:
Sounds like you would be referring to a positive and progressive immortality...

daniel wrote:
Yes, the ego wants the body to be immortal, and the anima wants the soul to be immortal (that's why death is "eternal"). But neither are; life units have a limited span of connection, in time and in space.
So what is the predictive function associated with this desire for immortality, that consciousness is using in clock space?
So, if we accept that the Supreme Absolute Truth is willing these life units into motion under his/her own inconceivable potencies of eternity, knowledge and bliss, then the anima is simply his/her expressing of his/her desire to experience and reciprocate with us, but we must meet him/her on his/her own terms.

Surely we are able to do this upon realizing our true nature as the Supreme Absolute Truth's own life units; then we become entitled to go play beyond the anima, in the very, 'Kingdom of God®' itself!

Re: conventional scientific constants are always changing

Posted: Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:09 am
by -OM-
daniel wrote:So it looks like the consensus is that a "clock" is a measurement of change, which is how it is used in the Reciprocal System--with one other factor that I did not see mentioned: it is constant, regular "change" that is independent of other motions. Larson's name of a clock is "the progression of the natural reference system."....

Now if you want a really interesting meditation, take the "reciprocal" and see if you can intuit clock space as a survival function of the Anima--what is clock space providing for a predictive function to your "soul"?
A reading of space or location?
my intuition seemed to have a much better explanation, then while attempting to put into words, :poof: gone! :lol:
Yes, the ego wants the body to be immortal, and the anima wants the soul to be immortal (that's why death is "eternal"). But neither are; life units have a limited span of connection, in time and in space. So what is the predictive function associated with this desire for immortality, that consciousness is using in clock space?
Identification with neither/transcending both sounds like the descriptions for "enlightenment"

Re: conventional scientific constants are always changing

Posted: Tue Nov 19, 2013 10:08 am
by Lozion
The length of the day varies; when you're in Nature, you get up with the sun, and go to bed shortly after dark. You do less in the winter (shorter days), and more in the summer. When it rains, you do something inside; when it's nice, you do something outside. What I've found from working in remote areas over the years, is that you make an internal list of "things to do," then do the one that works best with the current conditions. Here in the Old West, they call it "Indian time"--you get there, when you get there, as you can never tell what may happen along the way.
Indeed, you've just described of things work here in Africa- "Blackman's Time", which is real frustrating for the watch wearing foreigners who cant comprehend why, for example, a meeting between people happens when it happens. It takes a while to get accustomed to dealing with time here...

Re: conventional scientific constants are always changing

Posted: Tue Nov 19, 2013 10:49 am
by daniel
MrTwig wrote:That is the rhythm of life is it not? I can't wear a watch either. Too confining.
I believe we all want to be more natural in some way or another. Is it possible to be truthful to other wishes? When does too much knowledge blind you to reality? When does ask a simple question make it impossible to grasp eternal concepts. Who decides what is best? Where do we draw the line? Every answer that I've heard just bring another question to mind. Where does it all end? If it doesn't, then what is the point of learning anything? I feel as if I am going in circles. Maybe that is a good thing!
My favorite Larson quote, "Complexity is entertaining, simplicity is not."

Growth comes from trying to find answers; not being given them.
Gadhai wrote:So, if we accept that the Supreme Absolute Truth is willing these life units into motion under his/her own inconceivable potencies of eternity, knowledge and bliss, then the anima is simply his/her expressing of his/her desire to experience and reciprocate with us, but we must meet him/her on his/her own terms.
And if you don't accept the Supreme Absolute Truth is willing to do that? I happen to be a follower of the Mediocre Relative Opinion, because the more I learn, the more I realize how much there is to learn--and how often we get it wrong.
Gadhai wrote:Surely we are able to do this upon realizing our true nature as the Supreme Absolute Truth's own life units; then we become entitled to go play beyond the anima, in the very, 'Kingdom of God®' itself!
LOL... love the "registered trademark" symbol on God!!! Now THERE's some "absolute truth!" Wish I had thought of that for my New World Religion paper.

I no longer accept the concept of "absolute truths" as I once did. Heck, I don't even like Larson's use of the term, "absolute location," because it isn't, since it is "relative" to the progression of the natural reference system, unity (the speed of light). When you take a hard look at "absolute," you find it is nothing more than a choice of "datum;" a reference from which your consciousness uses to gauge or measure "stuff" (physical, metaphysical, ethical). The only reason that the speed of light is "absolute" in science, is because the scientists fixed its value.

I have found that in religious texts, the use of the term "absolute" has the same connotation as "infinity," which just means "we don't know, but if we use the word, you'll make all sorts of subjective interpretations and find a meaning for yourself, which we can claim credit for." If you look at the etymology of "absolute," it comes down to ab-solute, "to free or release." Quite opposite to the accepted definition of "fixed and unchanging."
Lozion wrote:Indeed, you've just described of things work here in Africa- "Blackman's Time", which is real frustrating for the watch wearing foreigners who cant comprehend why, for example, a meeting between people happens when it happens. It takes a while to get accustomed to dealing with time here...
Dare I say, "absolutely!" :D

Re: conventional scientific constants are always changing

Posted: Tue Nov 19, 2013 11:10 am
by Lozion
Dare I say, "absolutely!" :D
Then again, (not so) "paradoxically", africans are some of the best time-keepers in the world... :D

Re: conventional scientific constants are always changing

Posted: Tue Nov 19, 2013 4:40 pm
by Gadhai
And if you don't accept the Supreme Absolute Truth is willing to do that? I happen to be a follower of the Mediocre Relative Opinion, because the more I learn, the more I realize how much there is to learn--and how often we get it wrong.
He/she always gives us that choice, to accept or reject. However we are finite and he/she is infinite, so we kinda need him/her more than he/she needs us!


From the finite position we can accept either ascending empirical knowledge, only to always fall short; or accepting our humble position as being totally helpless and insignificant, infinitesimal spirit souls; then by our crying we can petition the Absolute Truth to descend to meet us.

By putting ourselves in the most extreme negative position, we attract the positive. The infinite then descends to meet the finite.



Here are some more absolutes for your contemplation and rejection... ;D

By definition anima must be scripted.

The script is humor based.

Comedy is the fabric of all existence.

Jaya Sri Nityananda!

Re: conventional scientific constants are always changing

Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2013 6:17 pm
by Gadhai
By putting ourselves in the most extreme negative position, we attract the positive. The infinite then descends to meet the finite, i.e. Through humility.