the location has no center

[Nungali]

Yep ... Mars is   the location at the moment. 

[Michael Sternbach]

So the universe is expanding. What is it expanding into? The only possibility I see is Absolute Nothingness.

 

True that "empty space" is the distance between two objects "in space". But once you get beyond all objects in the universe and you look for the distance between it and an object further out there is nothing to be found. There is no distance.

 

But I agree, "within" the universe there is no Absolute Nothingness. Beingness lies within the universe.

This is essentially similar to the definition that the latest Big Bang theory (Conformal Cyclic Cosmology) uses: Without yardstick, there is no space; without clock, no time.

 

This is not identical but seems to be related to your definition: No two objects that are apart from each other, no distance. I might add: No two events apart from each other, no time.

 

And yes, I think Nungali cheated... I have found him in unexpected places before, but I would be rather surprised to see him in a spaceship at the edge of the Universe.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Michael Sternbach

[Michael Sternbach]

What about 0 = 2 ( actually 0 = 2 'things' ..... 0 = +1 + - 1 ) ... and 'Supersymmetry ' theory ?

 

Spot-on. A particle being mirrored.

 

 

We jump straight from 0 to duality - forget singularity.

 

Could that be something like Tao - 0 , Yin / Yang duality ?

 

Yes. +1 plus -1 still equals 0.

 

A lonely singularity is somewhat hard to define. A single point is both Zero and One. The confusion in the Tarot attributions about whether the first Hebrew letter, Aleph, belongs to Trump 0, The Fool, or to Trump I, The Magician, has its root here.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Michael Sternbach

[3bob]

A&P, hope to God it's not Kuato, thus more like that time with him and Danny DeVito in "Junior"...

[3bob]

"But I agree, "within" the universe there is no Absolute Nothingness. Beingness lies within the universe"  By MH

 

I can dig it; btw there is also that saying in the T.T.C.,  "that which is against the Tao will soon cease to be"

which doesn't exactly sound like something going into absolute nothingness - being that there can't  be an energy/beingness loss to the overall equation, thus and maybe more like a ceasing to be a certain part of the equation, yet at the end of the line so to speak some kind of algebra would be needed to balance the equation to overall Beingness. (?)

[Michael Sternbach]

But then I would need a 3rd principle (I suppose one could insert 'factor infinite and unknown' ?

 

In Alchemy, the third principle is called Salt.

 

Can you outline your synthesis ? Sounds interesting.

 

Okay, in a nutshell:

 

Sulphur is symbolizing contraction, a centralizing force; it is Solar in its nature. Mercury is symbolizing expansion, a peripheral force; it is Lunar. Salt stands for materialization and belongs to the Earth. Matter in the Alchemical view is the result of Sulphur and Mercury combined.

 

Anthroposophic Physics generally emphasizes the ether as a peripheral force, as opposed to orthodox science stressing particles as sort of point centers. Projective Geometry deals with these entities mathematically.

 

But Alchemy in my outlook teaches that physical manifestation in fact occurs on the dividing line between expansion and contraction, or the two infinities, the infinitely large and the infinitely small. (No subatomic particle is really being thought of as infinitely small - even the electron seems to have a minor extension.)

 

I remember postulating the infinite extensions 'up and down' or 'in and out' ( sub atomic and deeper / Cosmic and beyond ) when I was a young lad ... watching the birth and death of a Universe ... except I got into trouble for just sitting there and striking matches and watching them burn ... I tried to explain to parents but ....

 

You got warmer... hot!

 

Have you noticed the 'model' seems reversed when one goes 'sub-atomic' ?

 

Not quite sure what you are talking about here.

 

(Just playing around here )

 

The model for manifestation 'above' this world (via Kabbalistic principles); a 10 'dimensional model' (some say 11 ) that starts with unity and is based on an ideal trinity , crosses an 'abyss' of 'perception' and manifests in another 7 levels ( sephiroth) with an 'averse dualistic partner' (qlippoth) and results in 'manifestation' - the 'world' or 'Universe' ( this 'hard stuff' ) - unity in diverse forms - Malkuth.

 

The model for the dynamics within the components of this world (which is like transitioning into another 'dimension' ... 'universe ?' (as its physics seem to be different) is reversed; the 3 ideal becomes the 3 dimensions, then we cross and abyss of perception and look into matter, Some say another 7 levels - that makes a 10 level model, but some add an 11th to tie it together and each particle has an opposite in duality (Super symmetry theory).

 

I'm trying to understand your meaning here. Starting from the three-dimensional world (physical space, Earth) progressing to the seven planetary spheres surrounding her in the Geocentric model? This being reversed to the kabbalistic Tree of Life?

 

The multiverse Russian Doll idea seems okay IMO ... what I protest against is the version of multiverses they postulated on the TV show I saw; basically; potentials that never happened are included as alternative universes .... IMO they are postulated imaginary worlds. The whole show seemed a bad explanation of trying to explain 'the now' and what happened to the things that didnt happen.... where did they go ?

 

They didnt go anywhere ... they just didnt happen ... I dont see why they had to happen 'somewhere else' (except to make some other complex calculations work out )

 

Gotcha. The Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. This indeed seems to raise more questions than it answers. At least in its common form, I therefore find it highly questionable itself.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Michael Sternbach

[Marblehead]

This is essentially similar to the definition that the latest Big Bang theory (Conformal Cyclic Cosmology) uses: Without yardstick, there is no space; without clock, no time.

The roots of my understands lie with Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" and Chuang Tzu's philosophy.

 

And yes, time and space are measurements: duration and distance.  How long does a fruit fly live?  How far is it to NYC?

 

This is not identical but seems to be related to your definition: No two objects that are apart from each other, no distance. I might add: No two events apart from each other, no time.

This is where I have to be careful when speaking about this stuff.  The source is the same - the manifestations are different, and, these manifestations occur at different points in time and at different locations.  Even Buddhists express this through their "Sand Art": It takes countless hours for their creation and when finished are blown away with one strong breath.  Almost like : First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.

 

 

And yes, I think Nungali cheated... I have found him in unexpected places before, but I would be rather surprised to see him in a spaceship at the edge of the Universe.

I think he was out there once while smoking some "special" stuff.

[Marblehead]

"But I agree, "within" the universe there is no Absolute Nothingness. Beingness lies within the universe"  By MH

 

I can dig it; btw there is also that saying in the T.T.C.,  "that which is against the Tao will soon cease to be"

which doesn't exactly sound like something going into absolute nothingness - being that there can't  be an energy/beingness loss to the overall equation, thus and maybe more like a ceasing to be a certain part of the equation, yet at the end of the line so to speak some kind of algebra would be needed to balance the equation to overall Beingness. (?)

Yes, when things "disappear" they don't become Absolute Nothingness, the become, once again, potential.  A simple conversion of energy.

 

I have a saying:  Everything that is, is, always has been, and always will be.

 

This is similar to that law of thermaldynamics that states that no energy can every be lost nor new energy created.  Therefore changes are simply transmutations.  The cycles of creation and destruction are simple transmutations.

[Michael Sternbach]

This is not identical but seems to be related to your definition: No two objects that are apart from each other, no distance. I might add: No two events apart from each other, no time.

 

This is where I have to be careful when speaking about this stuff.  The source is the same - the manifestations are different, and, these manifestations occur at different points in time and at different locations.  Even Buddhists express this through their "Sand Art": It takes countless hours for their creation and when finished are blown away with one strong breath.  Almost like : First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.

 

I am not sure if I have phrased this clearly enough. Summarizing your view, what I meant was:

 

No two objects that are apart from each in the Universe other equals there being no distance. I might add: No two events apart from each other in the Universe equals there being no time.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Michael Sternbach

[3bob]

for arguments sake (    ) and counter to the "return" in T.T.C. 43, what about non-potential - or the ceasing of potential ?

[3bob]

for arguments sake (    ) and counter to the "return" in T.T.C. 43, what about non-potential - or the ceasing of potential ?

[Marblehead]

I am not sure if I have phrased this clearly enough. Summarizing your view, what I meant was:

 

No two objects that are apart from each other equals no distance. I might add: No two events apart from each other equals no time.

Hehehe.  If you figure out what I have said you have done one better than I have.

 

I only say the words that come to my mind at the time.  Different time, different words.

 

There is time/space.  Is it a "thing", in and of itself?  I like to think it is the 4th dimension.

 

So, from a non-materialistic point of view I can understand the concept  of there being no time or space and that everything is happening in the "Now" moment.

 

But that's not my understanding.  Time/space exists.  That has been proven.  (Please don't ask me to reference that proof - it has to do with Einstein's theory of Relativity and the observed bending of space.)

 

Time/space has to exist else the universe would not "Go".

[Michael Sternbach]

Hehehe.  If you figure out what I have said you have done one better than I have.

 

I only say the words that come to my mind at the time.  Different time, different words.

 

There is time/space.  Is it a "thing", in and of itself?  I like to think it is the 4th dimension.

 

So, from a non-materialistic point of view I can understand the concept  of there being no time or space and that everything is happening in the "Now" moment.

 

But that's not my understanding.  Time/space exists.  That has been proven.  (Please don't ask me to reference that proof - it has to do with Einstein's theory of Relativity and the observed bending of space.)

 

Time/space has to exist else the universe would not "Go".

 

Yes, but I am referring to certain boundaries where these concepts break down.

 

At the beginning and - according to my much referenced Conformal Cyclic Cosmology by Roger Penrose - at the end of the Universe (time-wise) time and space become meaningless. Thus infinite and nil. (And for those of you who are inclined to ask, no, CCC is not the same as the Big Crunch theory.)

 

In a similar fashion, at the outer limits of the Universe, where there is nothing to be found (other than Nungali floating around, of course), space could be regarded as meaningless.

[Marblehead]

for arguments sake (    ) and counter to the "return" in T.T.C. 43, what about non-potential - or the ceasing of potential ?

That is one hellova arguement.  Hehehe.

 

Okay, first I read Ch 43 once again in order to align my thoughts:  ...   ...

 

Well, Henrick's Ch 43 does not speak to this concept.  However, in his Ch 14 we have:

 

11.  Boundless, formless!  It cannot be named,

12.  And returns to the state of no-thing.

13.  This is called the formless form,

14.  The substanceless image.

 

"Formless Form" and "Substanceless Image" are, in my understanding, potential.

 

Where it says "And returns to the state of no-thing", is a return from the state of "yu" (the Manifest) to the state of "wu" (the Mystery).  Mystery because we have on idea what will become, or perhaps once again become Manifested out of the Mystery.

 

I cannot recall Lao Tzu ever pointing to something similar to Absolute Nothingness.  Nor can I recall it being suggested that as long as a thing exists it looses its potential.  Even destruction gives way for creation.

[Marblehead]

Yes, but I am referring to certain boundaries where these concepts break down.

Hehehe.  I was afraid you were trying to go there and I was trying my best to not go there.  Oh well.

 

At the beginning and - according to my much referenced Conformal Cyclic Cosmology by Roger Penrose - at the end of the Universe (time-wise) time and space become meaningless. Thus infinite and nil. (And for those of you who are inclined to ask, no, CCC is not the same as the Big Crunch theory.)

I don't know enough about CCC or Roger Penrose to form an opinion.  He did believe in Black Holes, equating them to Singularities.  He did not accept Cosmic Inflation, which has been prover beginning with Hubble.

 

But yes, within a Black Hole and Singularity (the source of the Big Bang), time and space are meaningless.  This is because they have been destroyed and have not yet been re-created.  (That sounds wierd!)

 

In a similar fashion, at the outer limits of the Universe, where there is nothing to be found (other than Nungali floating around, of course), space could be regarded as meaningless.

Okay, let's say we can reach out to an extreme limit of the universe.  (We can't, of course, if it is true that the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light.)

 

We look outward and there is nothing.  This is because we cannot see nothing.  Just as we cannot see Tao.

 

But true, toward that outward direction there is no space, there is no time, There isn't even no-thing (potential) because there isn't even any energy.

[Nungali]

 

In Alchemy, the third principle is called Salt.

 

yep, I know alchemy has a 3rd principle .  I meant  the third principle seems missing in what I was talking about not in alchemy.

 

Okay, in a nutshell:

 

Sulphur is symbolizing contraction, a centralizing force; it is Solar in its nature. Mercury is symbolizing expansion, a peripheral force; it is Lunar. Salt stands for materialization and belongs to the Earth. Matter in the Alchemical view is the result of Sulphur and Mercury combined.

 

Anthroposophic Physics generally emphasizes the ether as a peripheral force, as opposed to orthodox science stressing particles as sort of point centers. Projective Geometry deals with these entities mathematically.

 

But Alchemy in my outlook teaches that physical manifestation in fact occurs on the dividing line between expansion and contraction, or the two infinities, the infinitely large and the infinitely small. (No subatomic particle is really being thought of as infinitely small - even the electron seems to have a minor extension.)

 

Thanks for the explanation.   I see the triangular model as ; 2 polarities with a third that either; originated, mediates or is a result of the other two.

 

When I mention 'a factor infinite or unknown' I am referring to a force / reason ....   we can say  +n  and  -n come together to form zero ... but what caused them to 'separate' from 0 in the first place into two polarities (unless one is just saying they are not and are just different ways of looking at things). the big bang might be explainable as emerging from singularity, but what caused it that to happen in the first place? If it was 'inherent' in the formula ... why was it ever singularity. It might be just a different way of looking at things ... but here we are   In multiple forms of the one , not in singularity  .) 

 

 

You got warmer... hot!

 

 

Not quite sure what you are talking about here.

Looking into matter itself on a sub-atomic level ... as opposed from looking at matter and postulating how it came about (like in Kabbalah ... sorta ) 

 

I'm trying to understand your meaning here. Starting from the three-dimensional world (physical space, Earth) progressing to the seven planetary spheres surrounding her in the Geocentric model? This being reversed to the kabbalistic Tree of Life?

 

The Kabbalistic model has 3 levels or sephiroth above the abyss of (any ) perceptions (supposedly)  and then has 7 levels of manifestation down to 'matter'.  The 'string theory / M-theory ' model  has 3 dimensions above the level of (normal) perception and below this another 7 'dimensions'  both postulate a 10 /  11  level model and both have a level of duality expression ( in Qlippoth and in Supersymmetry theory.

 

Sorry, I feel like I just repeated what I already said. 

 

 

Gotcha. The Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. This indeed seems to raise more questions than it answers. At least in its common form, I therefore find it highly questionable itself.

 

Yes ... to postulate a whole different universe where everything is the same except that I didnt answer this part of the post (when I actually did ) seems a complex issue, instead of just looking at 'what did happen' makes the 'present' 'one' reality unfold.

 

I creates all sorts of weird ideas in people that just accept it ... like how a tarot reading was right at the time of reading but the future changed and got it wrong ... not the tarot reader  

[Nungali]

Hehehe.  I was afraid you were trying to go there and I was trying my best to not go there.  Oh well.

 

I don't know enough about CCC or Roger Penrose to form an opinion.  He did believe in Black Holes, equating them to Singularities.  He did not accept Cosmic Inflation, which has been prover beginning with Hubble.

 

But yes, within a Black Hole and Singularity (the source of the Big Bang), time and space are meaningless.  This is because they have been destroyed and have not yet been re-created.  (That sounds wierd!)

 

Okay, let's say we can reach out to an extreme limit of the universe.  (We can't, of course, if it is true that the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light.)

 

We look outward and there is nothing.  This is because we cannot see nothing.  Just as we cannot see Tao.

 

But true, toward that outward direction there is no space, there is no time, There isn't even no-thing (potential) because there isn't even any energy.

 

 

But there is 'the limitless'

 

If you dont like the idea of space how about void ?

 

That's the trouble with you daoists ... you keep insisting that space has to be the emptiness contained within something or by something or in relation to something.

 

 

< rushes to his space ship and takes off for the 'edge of nothingness'     to avoid the flak . >

Edited February 21, 2015 by Nungali

[Nungali]

 

 

 

Damn ... keep still you god damn little bud ! 

 

[Bearded Dragon]

That's the trouble with you daoists ... you keep insisting that space has to be the emptiness contained within something or by something or in relation to something.

 

Yeah. Perpetually trapping oneself in duality.

 

The TTC says it can't be named for a reason. Once you name something it enters duality. It is, and has to be, non-psychological. Anything psychological is part of duality and is pissing in the wind of the Dao if you're incessant on reducing the Dao to such concepts.

 

All this talk of space in the universe is completely missing the point. Try again (or better not to).

[Michael Sternbach]

Yeah. Perpetually trapping oneself in duality.

 

The TTC says it can't be named for a reason. Once you name something it enters duality. It is, and has to be, non-psychological. Anything psychological is part of duality and is pissing in the wind of the Dao if you're incessant on reducing the Dao to such concepts.

Meditative practices in Daoism, Buddhism etc. are aiming at a state of non-duality within the psyche. So Dao (Source, original Unity, whatever you choose to call) it are indeed part of the psyche, otherwise they couldn't be experienced on a psychological level.

 

Dao even has its physiological representations, such as in the pineal gland and in the heart according to Chinese Alchemy and related systems. Even modern neuroscience concludes that there are parts of the brain that correspond to spiritual experiences.

 

All this talk of space in the universe is completely missing the point. Try again (or better not to).

I don't see how Dao could be divorced from the external world. Moreover, concepts like empty space and the space-less state before/outside creation also have their psycho-spiritual equivalents. Even if you were to see them only as metaphors, they would be at least as appropriate as the common traditional symbolism like a sea, a river, a wheel, a vase, and so on.

Edited February 21, 2015 by Michael Sternbach

[Bearded Dragon]

The external world is part of it. Part. Of. It. Finding the center is a matter of seeing the external world with pure clarity. It is a process of remaining outside of duality within the external world. It is the application of the unborn mind in every circumstance.

 

You can talk about parallels but there is no point. It's not going to help you find the center. Example: When I let go into it there is an expansion of peripheral vision. What point is there bantering on about peripheral vision when it's got nothing to do with what I'm actually doing? You can. That's fair enough. It's just that threads so often spiral into these branch topics rather than penetrative straight to the root. Been there, done that. It leads nowhere.

[Marblehead]

Yeah, after that post you did good to run off and hide.  Hehehe.

But there is 'the limitless'

Can you show me where that might be?

 

If you dont like the idea of space how about void ?

I don't have a problem with the word "space".  I would have a problem with "empty space" and an even bigger problem with "void".

 

That's the trouble with you daoists ... you keep insisting that space has to be the emptiness contained within something or by something or in relation to something.

 

I doubt Religious Taoists feel that way.  Not sure about Alchemic Taoists.

 

But I don't have a problem with this.  I don't have a problem with being one of the Ten Thousand Things - a manifestation that is separated from other manifestations by space.

 

< rushes to his space ship and takes off for the 'edge of nothingness'     to avoid the flak . >

Hehehe.  Don't get lost.

[Michael Sternbach]

Bearded Dragon,

 

I agree with you that the external or physical world is only part of a greater scheme. Nevertheless I find a conversation that focusses on external topics like the cosmos valuable, if it ties in with metaphysical perspectives. I criticise cosmology, and modern science in general, for not taking spiritual dimensions into account. But I am happy to do it here while talking with Marblehead, Nungali, and others. There is nothing wrong with this, imo.

 

The kind of enlightenment that I am seeking is one that unites the physical with the spiritual. So I regard any discussion leading in that direction as worthwhile. But to each their own.

Edited February 21, 2015 by Michael Sternbach

[Marblehead]

Yeah. Perpetually trapping oneself in duality.

 

The TTC says it can't be named for a reason. Once you name something it enters duality. It is, and has to be, non-psychological. Anything psychological is part of duality and is pissing in the wind of the Dao if you're incessant on reducing the Dao to such concepts.

 

All this talk of space in the universe is completely missing the point. Try again (or better not to).

But Great Bearded One,

 

Where is the fun in talking about that which cannot be spoken of?

 

Of course all the discussions speak to the realm of Duality.  It is in the Manifest only we find Duality.  It is only in duality where "things" exist.

 

And it is in the realm of space ("wu", the Mystery, Potential) that creation occurs.  Without space we each would be attached to each other.  How horrible would that be?

[Marblehead]

 It leads nowhere.

But I have nowhere I need to go.  Therefore I talk about where I am.