The Colonization of Tiamat: Part 4 of Anthropology series
Moderator:daniel
With some search I got interested about the symbol of "Squaring the circle". I mean I've had the though about this 3D object that I could do from along time ago, but havent had enough interest of doing it actually. It is a cube made of old DVDs and inside I though about some other things aswell, I have some DVDs that are corrupted so they are trash anyways, still on the table there gathering dust.
Re: The Colonization of Tiamat: Part 4 of Anthropology serie
did you see what you get if you spin a square really fast? 
Just an interesting thought, as squaring the circle is one thing, circling the square is another. Both might be symbolic representations and actually be referring to the same thing in a way. You never know with everything we know being backwards
What is interesting though, is that the usual reference point of a square is one of its corners (where height and length is measured from), where as the usual reference point of a circle is its center (where its radius, diameter and even its area is indirectly measured from). By "squaring the circle" in the context of looking at drawn shapes, you are moving the reference point from the center to the corner of the square, and vice versa if you "circle" the square.
The one reference point is a view "inside the box", the other reference point is a view "outside the box". The one looks round and the other not. The one has a biased view (seeing corners as extremes that stick out like pointy things) and other has a uniform view (perfectly round, no extremes).
If we think of frequencies, they are usually represented by round uniform shapes. If everything is a frequency or vibration of some kind, then everything is much more like a circle than it is like a square (think of those amplitude waves when any machine measures sound frequency).
So to me, squaring the circle has a meaning that might not be expected. Suspicions include everything from the "measuring" of things to the "control" of things. If you can measure and control something, you transcend it, just like the center of the circle (being inside the box, measuring the box from the inside) is no longer the reference point, but you go outside it, and measure it from outside. You are no longer subject to the perspective from inside the circle only, you can now measure it from other reference points (like the corner of a square around it).
Take the 2D shapes into 3D. The circle keeps its uniform-like properties as a sphere, and the square becomes a cube, doubling its corners from the square's 4 to the cube's 8. Taking that another dimension up would double it to 16 corners, but the sphere remains uniform. It just becomes denser with information, but its biases aren't amplified or multiplied (like the corners of the square or cube).
Interesting analogy when thinking of the spiritual path and how what we do in this density / or life experience is amplified in higher densities or planes of existence.
But moving along - if we combine the ideas of having an "outer" reference point and having an "inner" reference point, it sounds like building a bridge between two worlds. Perhaps space-time and time-space? The one (i.e. circle) measures things differently, more like a clock, going around, rotating, cycling. The other (i.e. square) measures it like we're more used to. Straight linear lines of measure between this point and that point until we draw a square around the circle.
But we can't measure circles using squares and we can't measure squares using circles. We keep ending up with extra bits left over (e.g. the corners of a square when we have a circle inside a square and check the vice versa when circling a square, how the circle only touches the corners and bends around the square's straight lines). So how do you build a bridge between the two archetypes? How do you combine them and have them be "as one shape" and sharing the same properties?
I suspect it has something to do with frequency, just like when you spin the square really fast, it looks like you are seeing a circle.
Motion makes them the same. Motion is the common factor. They can "move" the same even though they are very different. The motion can create (or rather, unlock?) the bridge between the two worlds.
But the motion is a specific kind of motion. It is a geometrically calculated one. It is deliberate. It is aligning the circle and square to use the same reference point for the motion. So if we spin the square around its center, the borders between its own properties (e.g. its extremeties) and that of the circle's properties (e.g. its uniformity) begins fading. In fact, we can now do things we could not do before as either the circle or the square.
We can have motion like a helix (extremities moving in a uniform pattern). Which could be harnessed e.g. penetrating something else like using this helix-like movement as a drill's movement to penetrate into solid rock. So the circle and square properties could be combined to provide new properties that neither could accomplish alone.
Very interesting yes? Hope I did not confuse anyone with my train of thought.
Just an interesting thought, as squaring the circle is one thing, circling the square is another. Both might be symbolic representations and actually be referring to the same thing in a way. You never know with everything we know being backwards
What is interesting though, is that the usual reference point of a square is one of its corners (where height and length is measured from), where as the usual reference point of a circle is its center (where its radius, diameter and even its area is indirectly measured from). By "squaring the circle" in the context of looking at drawn shapes, you are moving the reference point from the center to the corner of the square, and vice versa if you "circle" the square.
The one reference point is a view "inside the box", the other reference point is a view "outside the box". The one looks round and the other not. The one has a biased view (seeing corners as extremes that stick out like pointy things) and other has a uniform view (perfectly round, no extremes).
If we think of frequencies, they are usually represented by round uniform shapes. If everything is a frequency or vibration of some kind, then everything is much more like a circle than it is like a square (think of those amplitude waves when any machine measures sound frequency).
So to me, squaring the circle has a meaning that might not be expected. Suspicions include everything from the "measuring" of things to the "control" of things. If you can measure and control something, you transcend it, just like the center of the circle (being inside the box, measuring the box from the inside) is no longer the reference point, but you go outside it, and measure it from outside. You are no longer subject to the perspective from inside the circle only, you can now measure it from other reference points (like the corner of a square around it).
Take the 2D shapes into 3D. The circle keeps its uniform-like properties as a sphere, and the square becomes a cube, doubling its corners from the square's 4 to the cube's 8. Taking that another dimension up would double it to 16 corners, but the sphere remains uniform. It just becomes denser with information, but its biases aren't amplified or multiplied (like the corners of the square or cube).
Interesting analogy when thinking of the spiritual path and how what we do in this density / or life experience is amplified in higher densities or planes of existence.
But moving along - if we combine the ideas of having an "outer" reference point and having an "inner" reference point, it sounds like building a bridge between two worlds. Perhaps space-time and time-space? The one (i.e. circle) measures things differently, more like a clock, going around, rotating, cycling. The other (i.e. square) measures it like we're more used to. Straight linear lines of measure between this point and that point until we draw a square around the circle.
But we can't measure circles using squares and we can't measure squares using circles. We keep ending up with extra bits left over (e.g. the corners of a square when we have a circle inside a square and check the vice versa when circling a square, how the circle only touches the corners and bends around the square's straight lines). So how do you build a bridge between the two archetypes? How do you combine them and have them be "as one shape" and sharing the same properties?
I suspect it has something to do with frequency, just like when you spin the square really fast, it looks like you are seeing a circle.
Motion makes them the same. Motion is the common factor. They can "move" the same even though they are very different. The motion can create (or rather, unlock?) the bridge between the two worlds.
But the motion is a specific kind of motion. It is a geometrically calculated one. It is deliberate. It is aligning the circle and square to use the same reference point for the motion. So if we spin the square around its center, the borders between its own properties (e.g. its extremeties) and that of the circle's properties (e.g. its uniformity) begins fading. In fact, we can now do things we could not do before as either the circle or the square.
We can have motion like a helix (extremities moving in a uniform pattern). Which could be harnessed e.g. penetrating something else like using this helix-like movement as a drill's movement to penetrate into solid rock. So the circle and square properties could be combined to provide new properties that neither could accomplish alone.
Very interesting yes? Hope I did not confuse anyone with my train of thought.
Re: The Colonization of Tiamat: Part 4 of Anthropology serie
Are 1/3 (body) and 2/1 (soul) the speeds then? I was originally trying to make 1/3 and 2/1 the displacements and was adding unity but the results did not match yours.daniel wrote: [*]The soul must be elevated to the level of the body. Because the body is material and displaced in time (1/3 relation, for example), the soul appears to be superior (2/1). So when people see 2 compared to 1/3, they believe the former is of higher density. But keep in mind that 1/3 is actually a larger displacement (density) than 2/1 is... the former having a displacement of 2, the latter (1).
Using bruce’s instructions from RS2
I came up with:3 A “displacement” is used as a notation to represent atoms and particles, being the displacement (or offset) from unity. Hence a speed of ¼ has a temporal displacement of 3 (1/4-1/1=0/3; numerators (1-1=0) and denominators (4-1=3) are treated independently, not as normal fractions). Spatial displacements are put in parenthesis, so that a speed of 4/1 has a spatial displacement of (3).
Soul:
2/1 (speed) – 1/1 (unity) = 1/0 (displacement)
The soul displacement is (1).
Body:
1/3 (speed) – 1/1 (unity) = 0/2 (displacement)
The body displacement is 2.
"just down the road a little way, turn left, cross the drawbridge, and you will be my guest tonight."
-- directions to the grail castle
-- directions to the grail castle
Re: The Colonization of Tiamat: Part 4 of Anthropology serie
Yes, there is a lot of junk out there, but some good research, too.Ilkka wrote:Thank you for sharing some interesting information of this subject. I would like to know one more thing though about the alchemical symbols you referred, because the google is full of some weird things I have no idea which ones are more close to be actual ones than others. It would be helpful and thank you again Daniel.
Arthur E. Waite is the popular author on the subject (of Tarot deck fame), but I started out with Adam McLean's books: http://www.levity.com/alchemy/index.html
Also, Herbert Silberer's "Hidden Symbolism of Alchemy and the Occult Arts" is good (I have the 1917 version; I see it's been updated).
Regarding squaring the circle... I like the RS2 solution: Quantum PI
You got it.PHIon wrote:I came up with:
Soul:
2/1 (speed) – 1/1 (unity) = 1/0 (displacement)
The soul displacement is (1).
Body:
1/3 (speed) – 1/1 (unity) = 0/2 (displacement)
The body displacement is 2.
Power out? Let's see if many hands can make the lights work.
Facebook: daniel.phoenixiii
Facebook: daniel.phoenixiii
Re: The Colonization of Tiamat: Part 4 of Anthropology serie
So what would the hermafrodite look in this sense?daniel wrote:You got it.PHIon wrote:I came up with:
Soul:
2/1 (speed) – 1/1 (unity) = 1/0 (displacement)
The soul displacement is (1).
Body:
1/3 (speed) – 1/1 (unity) = 0/2 (displacement)
The body displacement is 2.
Could it be something like this perhaps?
Soul:
1/2 (speed) - 1/1 (unity) = 0/1 (displacement)
The soul displacement is 1.
Body:
2/2 (speed) - 1/1 (unity) = 1/1 (displacement)
The body displacement is 1.
Re: The Colonization of Tiamat: Part 4 of Anthropology serie
With the body having a higher density, this seems to imply that the goal of Magnum Opus is to primarily embrace the material world while we are experiencing this side, but to do so with the assistance of the soul. Without the help of anima, one is only living, so to speak, in half of a Universe, a non-conscious life unit. This is the time to live here in the material, not to escape and wish to be in 3D time. A balance of the two, yes, but not one or the other.
Somewhere along the line (probably from New Age philosophy) I got the impression that the goal of a spiritual life was to somehow get out of materiality and into spirituality. In the beginning of spiritual practice, a degree of asceticism may be appropriate because we need to break free (out?) of social constructs meant to benefit only the few. Many maxims are conveniently available to "assist" us on our quest, such as "money cannot buy you happiness." Oh yeah? See what happens if you can't pay your bills. How about "just be thankful for what you have"? Sure yes, be thankful, but what is concealed in that message? Don't strive perhaps? Meanwhile, there are plenty of people striving and succeeding out there -- the ones who wrote the maxims probably.
Anyway, the previous mathematical conclusion pounced me on the head. 3D space is the place to be for incarnate beings. Let the "dead" be dead and accomplish what they need to over yonder shores. We meet in the middle. So a few numbers on the computer screen has made me feel even more aware of the importance of using time wisely.
Somewhere along the line (probably from New Age philosophy) I got the impression that the goal of a spiritual life was to somehow get out of materiality and into spirituality. In the beginning of spiritual practice, a degree of asceticism may be appropriate because we need to break free (out?) of social constructs meant to benefit only the few. Many maxims are conveniently available to "assist" us on our quest, such as "money cannot buy you happiness." Oh yeah? See what happens if you can't pay your bills. How about "just be thankful for what you have"? Sure yes, be thankful, but what is concealed in that message? Don't strive perhaps? Meanwhile, there are plenty of people striving and succeeding out there -- the ones who wrote the maxims probably.
Anyway, the previous mathematical conclusion pounced me on the head. 3D space is the place to be for incarnate beings. Let the "dead" be dead and accomplish what they need to over yonder shores. We meet in the middle. So a few numbers on the computer screen has made me feel even more aware of the importance of using time wisely.
"just down the road a little way, turn left, cross the drawbridge, and you will be my guest tonight."
-- directions to the grail castle
-- directions to the grail castle
Re: The Colonization of Tiamat: Part 4 of Anthropology serie
Nicely put PHIon.PHIon wrote:With the body having a higher density, this seems to imply that the goal of Magnum Opus is to primarily embrace the material world while we are experiencing this side, but to do so with the assistance of the soul. Without the help of anima, one is only living, so to speak, in half of a Universe, a non-conscious life unit. This is the time to live here in the material, not to escape and wish to be in 3D time. A balance of the two, yes, but not one or the other.
Somewhere along the line (probably from New Age philosophy) I got the impression that the goal of a spiritual life was to somehow get out of materiality and into spirituality. In the beginning of spiritual practice, a degree of asceticism may be appropriate because we need to break free (out?) of social constructs meant to benefit only the few. Many maxims are conveniently available to "assist" us on our quest, such as "money cannot buy you happiness." Oh yeah? See what happens if you can't pay your bills. How about "just be thankful for what you have"? Sure yes, be thankful, but what is concealed in that message? Don't strive perhaps? Meanwhile, there are plenty of people striving and succeeding out there -- the ones who wrote the maxims probably.
Anyway, the previous mathematical conclusion pounced me on the head. 3D space is the place to be for incarnate beings. Let the "dead" be dead and accomplish what they need to over yonder shores. We meet in the middle. So a few numbers on the computer screen has made me feel even more aware of the importance of using time wisely.
If life's goal is to leave for 3D time, then why dont we see more alchemists/monks/baba's vanish before our eyes?
In rapport we thrive, in rivalry we strive.
Re: The Colonization of Tiamat: Part 4 of Anthropology serie
It would be more appropriately stated as to live here in the physical, as Larson defines "physical" to include both 3D space and 3D time (body and soul). Materialism is like fertilizer to the body/ego system. It makes it grow very fast, but fails to maintain the linkage to the soul that normal development would bring. As a consequence, the connection to the soul gets buried and people tend to act more and more "soul-less," living only for physical gratification.PHIon wrote:With the body having a higher density, this seems to imply that the goal of Magnum Opus is to primarily embrace the material world while we are experiencing this side, but to do so with the assistance of the soul. Without the help of anima, one is only living, so to speak, in half of a Universe, a non-conscious life unit. This is the time to live here in the material, not to escape and wish to be in 3D time. A balance of the two, yes, but not one or the other.
There is a corollary to "money can't buy happiness": "lack of money buys a lot of misery."PHIon wrote:Somewhere along the line (probably from New Age philosophy) I got the impression that the goal of a spiritual life was to somehow get out of materiality and into spirituality. In the beginning of spiritual practice, a degree of asceticism may be appropriate because we need to break free (out?) of social constructs meant to benefit only the few. Many maxims are conveniently available to "assist" us on our quest, such as "money cannot buy you happiness." Oh yeah? See what happens if you can't pay your bills. How about "just be thankful for what you have"? Sure yes, be thankful, but what is concealed in that message? Don't strive perhaps? Meanwhile, there are plenty of people striving and succeeding out there -- the ones who wrote the maxims probably.
You have to understand something about our illustrious leaders: they create the problems of the world NOT TO BE SOLVED, but to show how helpless you are to fight the system and to drain you of everything you have. They'll never fix the economy, because it is designed to fail--and to take you with it, not them. It's the same with all systems which, unfortunately, include most of the New Age ones. Do some digging (as deepfsh already has)... most of your new age Prophets (or as I call them, "Profits") worked with people from MK Ultra.
Let me explain it with an analogy. You are going to go hiking for a couple of weeks in the mountains, far away from civilization, so you carefully select items for your backpack to take with you. You have limited space and weight to deal with, and if you are like me, will pick useful tools so you can obtain things like food, clean water and sanitation rather than try to pack up half the house. If you're going to be camped for a few days, you're really going to want that shovel for a latrine. You don't bring a portable generator, gas and an electric stove--you bring matches and a pan... sensible stuff.PHIon wrote:Anyway, the previous mathematical conclusion pounced me on the head. 3D space is the place to be for incarnate beings. Let the "dead" be dead and accomplish what they need to over yonder shores. We meet in the middle. So a few numbers on the computer screen has made me feel even more aware of the importance of using time wisely.
Think of your body/soul as your backpack, that has all these tools you need to exist in the physical realm (material and cosmic), and your hike is this incarnation on the planet. You gave yourself useful tools that allow you to manipulate both environments to survive here, and possible improve the situation as you go (called "being a good steward"). Use the tools your brought! If you don't remember how, figure it out. Study the manuals... learn about how the mind works and how your body works, for this is the way your spirit can express itself and enjoy the hike--and perhaps learn something new along the way.
Ignoring the physical is going for a hike through beautiful country with a blindfold on. I really don't see the point of that journey, because all you'll do is walk into trees and trip over rocks, and never see the amazing sights around you.
Power out? Let's see if many hands can make the lights work.
Facebook: daniel.phoenixiii
Facebook: daniel.phoenixiii
Re: The Colonization of Tiamat: Part 4 of Anthropology serie
Isnt this the other way around? I mean if you dont know the ground and look at the sights then you are more likely to trip over rocksdaniel wrote:because all you'll do is walk into trees and trip over rocks, and never see the amazing sights around you.
Re: The Colonization of Tiamat: Part 4 of Anthropology serie
Absolutes are fun, aren't they.Ilkka wrote:Isnt this the other way around? I mean if you dont know the ground and look at the sights then you are more likely to trip over rocksdaniel wrote:because all you'll do is walk into trees and trip over rocks, and never see the amazing sights around you.
I think the point is that you pay attention, instead of just trying hard to get through it as fast as possible. There's joy to be had in the journey. More could be learned from the "scenery" than can be learned from how well we dodge trees and jump rocks.