Twoness: A Theory for the Basis of Order found in Ancient Wisdom

[Royce]

1. All ontological discussions end in infinite regress.
2. All theories without an uncreated foundation must end in infinite regress.
3. We can't prove eternity nor infinity, because if this esse substance only has a few properties like potentiality for dynamics, then we can't tell that it has been eternal shall we ever observe it. (How to tell from esse that it is eternal?)
4. What is left of esse then, if we can't ever prove it is eternal or infinite, and all theories MUST end in infinite regress?

Your logic and reasoning is flawed.
Your first state is meaningless as "infinite regress" is an ontological discussion and therefore is itself infinitely regressive. This renders the statement meaningless, logically. It is also a false self limiting statement.

Your second statement is a false assumption. It is a logically true and valid statement that either something came from nothing or something is eternal, without beginning and without end. That something came from literally absolutely nothing without cause or reason is seen but not proven to be absurd. Therefore we are left with something is eternal. There can be no regression. Only if you refuse to accept the possibility of something being eternal can one regress but not to infinity because logically we eventual come to the above statement "something is eternal or something came from nothing." Regression beyond this is impossible and there are no other possible choices.

While we cannot prove something is eternal it is the only logical conclusion possible. Whether we call this something esse, God or whatever is of no logical consequence. Something is eternal by logical necessity. Whether it is true or not can not be empirically known but it is the only logical valid conclusion left to us.

 

[Les Sleeth]

As I remember the underlying pattern that the I Ching relies upon to create its wisdom or that "a makes it work" is through "its" study of what it terms "the unnamed way"... The second thing I remember is that there are more than two poles, states or two things

I opened with a quote from the Tao Te Ching that says: “The created universe is backed by yin and faced by yang, and harmonized by the immaterial Breath [ch’i]”

The I Ching embodies centuries of thinking of what in China is called yin-yang philosophy. While one can find a great many situations in life, all are generalized into either yin or yang. Further, cosmologically the theory was that all polar situations arise from a single underlying polarity the universe exists within. That is what the Tai Chi symbol (the black and white tadpole-like drawing) represents. Tai Chi literally means "mainspring," and in yin-yang philosophy it is the basis of order and change in the universe.

Thirdly I would point out that the idea of "twoness arising out of oneness" assumes that there is a sequence of some sort that has taken place or is taking place.
To this I'd make the reminder that assumtion is used in the reasoning of religions. As far as I know, assumtion is not a mainstay of science nor is it an efficent practice for the philosophies.

I don't see how you can say that. Of course it's assumed a sequence is taking place because that's just about all we see in the universe. And it isn't at all accurate to say that assuming sequences "is not a mainstay of science nor is it an efficent practice for the philosophies." In fact, just about all science and philosophy does is look for sequences.

The problem, as I've outlined to octelcogopod, is that there is no logical beginning hypothesized for the first sequence. If we start with an uncreated "something" the infinite regress problem is solved, but then the next question becomes what's the first step in the sequence of events that led to our universe.

Because vibration and polarity are part and parcel of every single aspect of creation, I am suggesting that possibly the first step from oneness is some sort of oscillatory dynamic(s).

 

[Les Sleeth]

I agree, with most of it.
Saying it is my choice that anything is infinitelty regressive isn't really true.
The reason so many people ask themselves "but where did THAT come from?" is because well, cause and effect/determinism brings a cause to everything.
I don't think this is something just limited to humans, I think humans think like that because it is the way the universe functions.
I think if the universe had not been deterministic with cause and effect, there would be chaos, as such when we throw a ball at the wall, we expect it to bounce back.
Now, huamsn constantly think like this "if I do THIS then THAT happens."
It's just the way things work.

If I were to build a fence, I'd start with a conception and end with the last nail. You can come along in the middle of that project and only want to look at the mechanics of board placement . . . measuring, cutting, nailing, etc. It is your choice not to want to know the role my consciousness has played in erecting the fence, for example, and to only want to focus on the mechanics of the situation.

The same is true of this universe. Some people can see a bigger whole present behind what's most apparent, and understand that what is here now came about through some means we've not yet discovered. Since something from nothing isn't believed to happen in this universe, then whatever the universe's "creator" is, whether mechanics or consciousness, may not obey the same rules we find inside creation.

You say "such philosophical discussion is worthless" but plenty of scientists too are involved in trying to understand what brought about creation, and all of it so far is pure theory. It is useful because if you find an explanation that fits all the facts, then you can use it as a guide to explore other aspects of reality. Relativity is one such example . . . would you say Einstein's theorizing was worthless?

So clinging to science isn't going to save you from the origins dilemma. Of course you can myopically look at things, and by never lifting your head out of the sand stay relatively unaware that something huge and not understood has brought about creation. That's fine if you want to do that, but it doesn't mean philosophical discussion is worthless because you don't want to participate.

 

[sameandnot]

That's why I see value in learning to reason well. For me the most important thing by far is that a great many people need things to make sense before they are willing to open up to experience. It is useless to wish they were different, that's just how things are.

exactly! though i think that one has learned to truly reason well, when they understand the ground that reason stands on. when they have seen the source of reason, from whence it issued, and thereby Know, not only how to reason, but what reason really is.
reasoning alone, will not produce the whole comprehension of reason. in order to actualize Reason, rather than be "just reasoning", but to epidemize reason (stand as a paragon of reason) one must go beyond it, and look at it, again from the "outside"
it is like a person who was born in a town (or country) and never having been beyond its borders, that one's concept of what the town/country (life/Reality, in general) is will be drastically limited; they will be "in the box" as it were; unable to have a more complete view of it, unless they leave and see what is beyond it. upon traveling to a new town or country and experiencing it, that one will be in a better position to know the town from whence he came, having the ability to look from without. now, going back to the original town, the whole experience of the town is different. the people who have never left, do not Know what the town is (as all knowing is relative knowing; in the same exact way that all motion is relative motion). they are "stuck in their box". the people in the town, who never left, are all arguing about town policy, but their scope is limited. what they need is a perspective from "outside", so that the situation of policy may be seen more clearly.
see how this makes sense?
it is a metaphor. in the age of space travel (assuming it occurs) people who have never left earth, will be at a disadvantage, in terms of maturation and their unfolding of knowledge. they will be stuck in the "earth box."
accounts of experiences from without, are helpful. hence, the reason why adventure stories and stories about those such characters (rogue characters, lone rangers, etc.) are enjoyable. they give a taste of what is beyond, from the perspective of one who sees it all very clearly (having transcended all the various circles/boxes of human limitation).
maybe this makes sense to some of you. this is just my account of reason and rationality. i think it is clear and insightful. in essence: one must "go beyond" reason to see it clearly and know it wholly; to really be rational demands that one has gone beyond reason. we go beyond it by entering the One, without reverting to reasoning or rationality. experiencing the One in its true, wholeness. then looking at reason or rationalizing, again, having known the beyond. one may be rationalizing from the beyond, and still not be restricted to solely rational limitations
this is the basis of wisdom.
this was expounded so that all may know, or see, the essence of reason and how wisdom is found.

 

[quantumcarl]

I don't see how you can say that. Of course it's assumed a sequence is taking place because that's just about all we see in the universe. And it isn't at all accurate to say that assuming sequences "is not a mainstay of science nor is it an efficent practice for the philosophies." In fact, just about all science and philosophy does is look for sequences.

Science and Philosophy can no longer rely on the illusion of sequence or heirarchy. This is the stuff for religious and personal, relative realities. The interdependence of all states or things renders the notion of sequence and heirarchy as illusionary and relative to the observer. Religion and personal belief are welcome to this illusion but science and philosophy have an obligation to explore the latest models which describe a simultaneity of existence.

What our limited perception perceives as sequence or heirarchy is a result of our bias as bio-organisms. Our perception is limited by our genetic predisposition to survive in what we see as a "demanding physical environment".

There are examples from certain mysticisms, as unscientific yet intuitive as they are, who also claim that there is
"no beginning and no end", Christianity for one. This conceptual sentiment also supports the idea of an asequencial and non-heirarchial existence that we are all enjoying, simultaneously, at this time, right now.

Believing in the importance of (the illusion of) sequence and that of separation and heirarchy is like believing the sun goes around the Earth because it appears to do so. I believe humans have a duty and a right to study the nature of existence unhampered by illusion.

_______________________
On the subject of "twoness": Two is made up of units of one. In order to have two, we need one and one. This creates a condition of "Threeness" and here's why:

In order to have two, you need one. One does not cease to exist when it is in a unit of two. Therefore a state of Threeness is created by the move to create twoness and this renders twoness non-existent.

 

[Royce]

My Understanding of the Essence of Esse

This is my Understanding on this topic so far.

1. Something is eternal meaning that there is something that is without beginning and without
end.

2. Something being eternal is also atemporal, without time as we experience it. There is only the
one eternal moment. For something to be eternal and temporal is intuitively inconsistent to me.

3. Esse is the term that we are using for that base or ground substance that is eternal.

4. By experience and observation esse is thought to be.
A. Dynamic
B. Vibrate in at least one mode if not in a virtually unlimited number of modes.
C. Esse is perceived as a bright pulsating bright light.
D. Esse is thought to be alive.
E. Esse is thought to be conscious.
F. Esse is thought to be the fundamental substance from which all that is, is made or
derived.

My reasoning on the above.

As esse is eternal and atemporal there is no time which there was no esse nor will there be any time when there is no esse

If esse is alive and conscious then there is and will be no time in which esse was not alive and conscious. It seems to me then that it would not be inconsistent to think of esse as life itself and consciousness itself.

If everything that is, is made of or derived from esse and that esse is real then all that is, is esse and is real. There is only esse. There is only one that is all that is and all that is, is one, esse.

The essence of esse is logically and for all practical purposes that which I have in other threads referred to as the One that is all and all that is the One, God, The Creator and master of the universe that is the universe and the universe is the One and all that is, is real.

I do not mean any of this in any way to be religious or devotional as we understand religion and biblical creationism. I am fully aware that this is considered spiritual as we understand the term.
However, if all is esse and all is real the esse is spiritual, consciousness, and physical all at the same time. These terms are simply describing different states of the same one thing and thus lose there distinctive separate meanings.

There is no duality nor is there a trinity. There is in essence, in esse one, only one and that one is all that is

(By the way, Les, as I was sitting in light meditation last night, what I call contemplation, with this topic and esse on my mind, the thought came to me; "I am esse." It wasn't the I of me, Royce, but the I of "I am." This is what lead me to post this reply. Take as you will for what ever worth it may be or not to you.)

 

[sameandnot]

nice, royce.

 

[octelcogopod]

Your logic and reasoning is flawed.
Your first state is meaningless as "infinite regress" is an ontological discussion and therefore is itself infinitely regressive. This renders the statement meaningless, logically. It is also a false self limiting statement.
Your second statement is a false assumption. It is a logically true and valid statement that either something came from nothing or something is eternal, without beginning and without end. That something came from literally absolutely nothing without cause or reason is seen but not proven to be absurd. Therefore we are left with something is eternal. There can be no regression. Only if you refuse to accept the possibility of something being eternal can one regress but not to infinity because logically we eventual come to the above statement "something is eternal or something came from nothing." Regression beyond this is impossible and there are no other possible choices.
While we cannot prove something is eternal it is the only logical conclusion possible. Whether we call this something esse, God or whatever is of no logical consequence. Something is eternal by logical necessity. Whether it is true or not can not be empirically known but it is the only logical valid conclusion left to us.

I disagree.
First of all, we only see the universe in terms of infinite and cause and effect because we are born that way, and the perhaps the universe functions in such a way, that doesn't mean it ACTUALLY works that way.
Both of these concepts don't have to be some sort of "ultimate choices", they can rather be humanistic creations, created by our simple minds.
And that's part of my point, we just don't know.
The logic of time and space may not be logical outside the universe, or in another universe.
The logic that 1+1 = 2 may not be true there.

For all we know we could be stuffed in some multiverse type of thing where there are multiple branes inside a higher dimension, and then your theory falls through because you could never prove that the higher dimension is made up of esse, nor could you prove that the higher dimension isn't infinitelty regressive as well.

All in all this thesis doesn't hold any water in my opinion, EVEN IF it is logical.
I could say there was an invisible elephant over your head, then I could say that it doesn't matter that I can't prove it, but tell me would that enlighten us in any way?
I'm not saying all philosophical discussion is useless, I'm saying when we get to the point where we nio longer have any water to hold, that it becomes useless.
It's fine to say "hey there may be some eternal substance that created the universe, but bear in mind, we can never prove it nor can we observe it, but it's just an idea."
Instead of giving it names and starting to theorize over things we have no idea about, that's what I object to.

 

[sameandnot]

It's fine to say "hey there may be some eternal substance that created the universe, but bear in mind, we can never prove it nor can we observe it, but it's just an idea."
Instead of giving it names and starting to theorize over things we have no idea about, that's what I object to.

then again... what can we prove to one another?
Knowing and proving are not synonymous terms.

one need not be able to prove, for one to Know.

[you can't prove this statement.]

actually, Real Knowing can never be proven, and that is precisely what makes it Real Knowing. Things that can be "proved" are not Known. The proofs are always incomplete, and are never "proofs" at all. that kind of, proof-based-knowledge is flawed, somewhere fundamentally.

if one knows that "proof" is not existent, then direct Knowing is the only worthy endeavor.

many point the way, but few travel it.

 

[Royce]

I disagree.
First of all, we only see the universe in terms of infinite and cause and effect because we are born that way,

I agree that this is the way we learn to accept the teachings of institutional educational systems such as schools, colleges and universities. I for one have spent years trying to get beyond such limited thinking and methods. I do not think of the universe in those terms at all.

Both of these concepts don't have to be some sort of "ultimate choices", they can rather be humanistic creations, created by our simple minds.
And that's part of my point, we just don't know.
The logic of time and space may not be logical outside the universe, or in another universe.

First, I am not talking, in my response to your post, about the universe. I'm talking about the illogic of anything being infinitely reducible or regress-able. Ultimately we come to the limit where nothing is left but those two choices and they cannot be reduced or regressed any further.

Second if the universe is defined as all that is, all that exists then there is and cannot be any "outside" of the universe. If there are such things as multi-universes then they are part of, subset or sub-universe of the Universe.

The logic that 1+1 = 2 may not be true there.

Then we are not talking about this universe because this universe is invariably logical and able to be modeled to extreme accuracy by mathematics. This is one thing that science has been very successful in showing. If logic does not apply then it is unknowable and not understandable. We could not talk or write about or even think about it.

I'm not saying all philosophical discussion is useless, I'm saying when we get to the point where we no longer have any water to hold, that it becomes useless.

I disagree. When we have "water to hold" it is still science. When there is no water to hold it become philosophy. When holding water is not this issue but is beyond holding or water then it is metaphysical philosophy.
Guess what sub forum you in now

It's fine to say "hey there may be some eternal substance that created the universe,

You missed the point big time here. No wonder you object. No one is saying that esse created the universe. We're saying that esse IS the universe

but bear in mind, we can never prove it nor can we observe it, but it's just an idea."
Instead of giving it names and starting to theorize over things we have no idea about, that's what I object to.

It has been observe and experienced.

Ideas is what science and especially philosophy is all about.

If we don't have an idea and a name for it we can't discuss it.

As Les pointed out this is mainly an exercise in reasoning.

Object all you want. We all do. That's one of the things that is so fun about the philosophy sub-forum.

(Les, thank you. With this thread and you explanations of the concept and reasoning I have finally been able to dig it all out and get it verbalized in my mind. Esse is a substance that my mind can handle rather the some nebulous spirit, ectoplasm or aether. Right or wrong at least I have something that my mind can grasp and wrestle with.)

 

[roamer]

I'm sorry if my post is a tangent from the current topic but I found it very instructive to see Royce just write out his thought process on thinking about esse. So I'm going to do the same, and I'll try to write it out as a model. First I'll write out my operating assumptions and then I'll just describe where these assumptions lead me.

1. Esse is the ground of existence, there is nothing more basic than esse, therefore it is homogenous it is all the same.
2.Esse was not created and can't be destroyed, therefore there is no time in esse.
3.Esse is also not bound by dimensions since this would introduce something that is not esse, but since all is esse this is not possible.
4.I'll take Les's cue and assume that one off esses properties is that it is vibrant, but becuase of assumption one, all esse must vibrate the sme.

The last assumption is usually where I start thinking about esse. Since esse is vibratory in nature I try to compare it to something else that vibrates. So I imagine a string that is stretched tight and pulled, but because of assumption 1. there can be no string, so the only similarity of this analogy is that the string is vibratory in nature. So I am hung up here in imaging that there is something that vibrates but has nothing beneath it but this is what my assumptions lead me to conclude.
I really can't say I can imagine this,I mean from one perspective I know EVERYTHING does vibrate, but I've always imagined that there was a "something" that was vibrating.
Anyways if I continue with this model I try to imagine how these properties could create all that I see and experience. Les pointed out that when compressed esse would want to expand. I guess when I look at other things that vibrate when they are compressed they just vibrate faster. If I take a basketball and drop it from my hand and then push my my hand down while the ball bounces off of it, the vibration only gets faster and faster. Esse can not vibrate faster because of assumption 1. So what happens when esse is compressed, more importantly how the heck did esse every even get compressed in the first place?? I really have no clue how esse could get compressed by iteself unless I added one more assumption that said something like "esse is always undergoing expansion and compression dynamics" So if i said that, then I could at least think a little bit more about what happens under compression. I guess since esse MUST always vibrate at the same rate when it is compressed all I can intuitively say is that it would certainly resist the compression (want to expand). But the more I think about it the less I understand compression and expansion in this model. Everything I know that is compressed is requires a change in volume or change in the amount of space it takes up, there is no space in esse it is limitless. Anyways I would really love to hear some comments on how else to think about esse.

 

[Les Sleeth]

The interdependence of all states or things renders the notion of sequence and heirarchy as illusionary and relative to the observer.

I have heard this idea several times before and I just don’t get it. Why is it necessary to claim sequences (I assume we are talking about cause and effect) are irrelevant simply because of what we find at the quantum level? If a photo of the sun is composed of 500,000 dots, does it make sense for two people to argue whether the picture is a photo of the sun or 500,000 dots? It is both. Similarly, there are quantum operations that defy classical mechanics, yet classical mechanics hold perfectly true at the macro level.

If that weren’t so, then why would any calculations take place anywere, including in science? Prior to most practical projects calculations are performed and trusted because of how consistently reality has behaved in the past. I rely on sequences every second of my waking moment, and I haven’t had a problem yet. I use the sequence of a certain grind for my espresso, pressed with 30 lbs. of pressure, a 20 second shot, at a specific temperature. Alter one of the factors and the espresso turns out weak or bitter. I flip the light switch and the light comes on, the light doesn’t come on, and then I flip the light switch.

Believing in the importance of (the illusion of) sequence and that of separation and heirarchy is like believing the sun goes around the Earth because it appears to do so. I believe humans have a duty and a right to study the nature of existence unhampered by illusion.

The illusion is to believe there is only separation; but I say, it is unrealistic to say there is only oneness too. There are clear distinctions between things depending on what level you observe them. All communication has to be stopped if we blur distinctions so much that nothing can be identified.

On the subject of "twoness": Two is made up of units of one. In order to have two, we need one and one. This creates a condition of "Threeness" and here's why:
In order to have two, you need one. One does not cease to exist when it is in a unit of two. Therefore a state of Threeness is created by the move to create twoness and this renders twoness non-existent.

I guess we’ll have to disagree about the meaning of this.

I assume you are interpreting the Tao Te Ching verse, “Out of Tao, One is born; out One, Two; out of Two, Three; out of Three, the created universe.” Relying on traditional Chinese philosophy, the Tao is all, and oneness is a feature of that. Two is the term for polarity and the basis of yin-yang philosophy in China.

In Chinese philosophy the “three” is oneness and polarity (twoness) working together to create this universe. So first there is the oneness of the Tao, some portion of it polarizes, and then out of that first big polarity emerges the universe. The idea is that all polarities in the universe derive from a most basic and vast polarity our universe is within.

The “move to create twoness” doesn’t render twoness nonexistent. If you remove polarity from a situation, you will find the oneness of neutrality returns, so twoness is simply a “condition” of oneness. There is no contradiction, there is no duality. Oneness describes the unity of things, twoness describes a potential “form’ oneness can take (polarity). Just because water takes the “form” of ice doesn’t mean it has stopped being water.

You can’t remove polarities from the universe and still have a universe (atoms, for instance are polar, so matter would become neutral oneness if polarity were removed). So a hierarchy and sequence actually is indicated. The hierarchical sequence is oneness first, twoness second, and then all the forms of the universe which depend on oneness and polarity/vibration to exist in form. It isn’t form or polarity/vibration or oneness . . . it is form and polarity/vibratioin and oneness.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I'm sorry if my post is a tangent from the current topic but I found it very instructive to see Royce just write out his thought process on thinking about esse. So I'm going to do the same, and I'll try to write it out as a model. First I'll write out my operating assumptions and then I'll just describe where these assumptions lead me.
1. Esse is the ground of existence, there is nothing more basic than esse, therefore it is homogenous it is all the same.
2.Esse was not created and can't be destroyed, therefore there is no time in esse.
3.Esse is also not bound by dimensions since this would introduce something that is not esse, but since all is esse this is not possible.
4.I'll take Les's cue and assume that one off esses properties is that it is vibrant, but becuase of assumption one, all esse must vibrate the sme.
The last assumption is usually where I start thinking about esse. Since esse is vibratory in nature I try to compare it to something else that vibrates. So I imagine a string that is stretched tight and pulled, but because of assumption 1. there can be no string, so the only similarity of this analogy is that the string is vibratory in nature. So I am hung up here in imaging that there is something that vibrates but has nothing beneath it but this is what my assumptions lead me to conclude.
I really can't say I can imagine this,I mean from one perspective I know EVERYTHING does vibrate, but I've always imagined that there was a "something" that was vibrating.
Anyways if I continue with this model I try to imagine how these properties could create all that I see and experience. Les pointed out that when compressed esse would want to expand. I guess when I look at other things that vibrate when they are compressed they just vibrate faster. If I take a basketball and drop it from my hand and then push my my hand down while the ball bounces off of it, the vibration only gets faster and faster. Esse can not vibrate faster because of assumption 1. So what happens when esse is compressed, more importantly how the heck did esse every even get compressed in the first place?? I really have no clue how esse could get compressed by iteself unless I added one more assumption that said something like "esse is always undergoing expansion and compression dynamics" So if i said that, then I could at least think a little bit more about what happens under compression. I guess since esse MUST always vibrate at the same rate when it is compressed all I can intuitively say is that it would certainly resist the compression (want to expand). But the more I think about it the less I understand compression and expansion in this model. Everything I know that is compressed is requires a change in volume or change in the amount of space it takes up, there is no space in esse it is limitless. Anyways I would really love to hear some comments on how else to think about esse.

I'm working on answering you in more depth, but I keep getting sidetracked, plus I'm busy at home. However, let me try to answer a couple of things.

First about vibrancy. If you have a bucket of water, and you set it on a running car, the water will vibrate. Vibrancy is one aspect, and the water is another. Similarly, vibrancy isn't what is most basic about esse, light is. To distinquish its homgeneous nature from particle EM I've called it "illumination" in the past.

So in this model, esse is vibrant illlumination.

Your point about esse vibrating faster is well-taken, but I'm not suggesting that it can. What I've said is that compression accentuates vibrancy to become oscilation. With a little compression vibrancy is gently exaggerated (amplified), with more compression the frequency increases, but it can never surpass the base frequency of esse's natural vibrancy. You might see vibrancy as a superfine "trill." For an example let's say esse has a million minute vibrant movements per inch of esse. If you compress it just a little, out of vibrancy 10 oscillations per inch appear. Keep compressing and it goes to 100, then 1000, and so on, but there is a natural limit to how fast it can go that's set by base vibrancy.

Your concern about a change in volume is hard to address. There is no such thing as "space" in this model. What appears as space between chunks of matter is really filled with esse. But if esse can become compressed forms, that means it must be incredibly elastic. So where a compression takes place, we'd find the area surrounding it stretched. (If you think about how gravity works, that matches well with observations.)

 

[octelcogopod]

The problem is such a substance could not be the basic building block of the universe.
If it has one property, you can cut it in half.
You say where it appear to be space there's just esse, but how does that make any sense?
Esse must have some sort of dimensions, in its own logical or the universes logical space.

 

[sameandnot]

it appears to me, if we are talking about the One, can we really say that it does anything, let alone vibrate?

here is the reason for this question:

-if there is action, at all, there must also be non-action.
-action/non-action are characteristic of the Two. (polarity; duality)

-Vibration implies tension between two polarities. no?

can the One be said to be in a state of tension?

-tension is the condition present between Two; Two is necessary for tension to be.

-The One, which we are talking about, is whole, with no counter-part.
-so, it seems absurb to think that the One is in tension with the Two, let alone with itself.

-Tension and, therefore, vibration are properties of the Two, and cannot be considered properties of the One.

Further:
-if the esse is everywhere, there is nowhere that it is not.
-if the esse is eternal, then time and space are not present in its being.
-therefore, the idea that it vibrates (in time and space... as vibration must be in time and space), appears to be, really, a false perception.

-in the Two then, time and space is a factor, but never for the One. (as it is omnipresent and eternal.
-The One cannot "go" anywhere, or "change" as these are properties that belong only to the Two.
-but, the One is not limited by the Two.
-So, there is Really only One.

is talking about space and time and change, then founded in illusion and false views?

i am trying to unfold the Two, which "me" and "you" are inherently bound in, so that "I" may know the One, which "I" am.
-it follows that "I", then, am eternal, boundless and unchanging, since what "I" essentially am is the One; we all agree that the One is. what "I" am, then, must be the One, because "I" am aware of my existence.
-therefore, what "I" really am is the One and the rest of my ideas/conceptions/beliefs must be illusion/delusion.

is this logic flawed?

 

[sameandnot]

because "I" exist and the One necessarily exists, it follows that the perceptions that I have which involve beginning and end and change, do not apply to what "I" really am.
"I" is the primal, most essential nature of being, for "I", so it seems that it must be in accord with the One, since the one is the most essential nature of being.

so "I" is omnipresent, and eternal and unchanging... essentially it is That, which is the One.

again: please note the flaws of this logical excercise. all are welcome and never turned away.

so, if we are talking about order or chaos, we are speaking entirely of the Two. Twoness, then, is the basis of order and the One is entirely transcendant of order and chaos.

order and choas are polarities and are therefore properties of the Two. they seem to go hand in hand. For "order" there is "chaos" and for "chaos" there is "order."

 

[Les Sleeth]

The problem is such a substance could not be the basic building block of the universe.
If it has one property, you can cut it in half.
You say where it appear to be space there's just esse, but how does that make any sense?
Esse must have some sort of dimensions, in its own logical or the universes logical space.

I think you have left the path of logic we've been following. What is the logic of saying you can cut a property in half? Can you halve infinity?

Why must esse have dimensions? If it is infinitely extended, then it is immeasurable.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Hey Les,
I am curious as to how an uncreated, unlimited, unbounded plane of esse could ever become concentrated in the first place? Once esse is compressed I can begin to imagine how it could take on the properties you describe. . . . But what I still don't understand is what caused the compressive forces, or dynamics that led to one substance exhibiting multiple forms.

Yours is a good question because I can use it to demonstrate the modeling technique I’m relying on. Let me first define how that technique is used :

1. Assume something unknown is true; in this case, an uncreated ground state substance that composes and determines all existence (esse).
2. Imagine what esse must be like to produce conditions we find here in our universe.
3. To help with envisioning what esse must be like, search for traits that run throughout the universe.

What I’ve suggested is that unless there is some plane of existence that is an uncreated, uncaused substance and set of conditions, then we cannot escape the logical dilemma of infinite regress.

Three traits I’ve identified that run throughout the universe are oscillation, polarization, and compression-decompression.

To account for oscillation with esse, I’ve proposed esse is inherently vibrant, and that vibrancy is accentuated by compression to become “vibration.” What is the source of the compression?

Keep in mind there are really two major factors present in the ground state. There is the nature of esse, and then there is the ocean aspect of esse. Just like a water ocean, water has characteristics as H2O and it has characteristics because it resides as a volume of water (e.g., eddies, waves, etc.). Similarly, there is the inherent characteristics of esse, and there are esse ocean dynamics. Since compression is an elementary dynamic, and esse is essentially energetic (vibrancy), it is a simple matter to imagine that the ocean of esse is turbulent and that part of that turbulence is compression. Let’s call the point where compression occurs in the esse ocean a “position.”

See Diagram 4 (click to enlarge)

What might go on at a position under compression?

See Diagram 5

The idea is that it creates an discrete oscillating point, or position, within the whole of the esse ocean. Notice in the drawing I called the position a “balance point” because it is midway between the compression phase and decompression phase.

Simple compression might explain how oscillation comes about, but what about polarization? For that it seems that oscillation will have to endure. Assuming we have an infinite ocean of esse, and eternity, then it isn’t a stretch to imagine that at times multiple compressional forces surround a single position, which would keep the pressure on. With sufficient duration and enough pressure, might a position differentiate into stabilized modes, thus creating a self-sustaining “entity”?

See Diagram 6

Why suppose such an occurrence in the esse ocean? The ability to distinguish an entity within the oneness of the esse ocean is crucial if we are to somehow move from undifferentiated oneness to manifold reality. If that first step out of oneness is the establishment of some sort of polar entity, then we should have the means for further development.

Getting back to the modeling demonstration, the idea has been to imagine base conditions of esse and the esse ocean that lead to what we find here in the universe. Polarity and oscillation are key to the existence of the universe, so we have reasoned “backwards” from that trying to envision the primordial or “ground” state.

 

[octelcogopod]

I think you have left the path of logic we've been following. What is the logic of saying you can cut a property in half? Can you halve infinity?
Why must esse have dimensions? If it is infinitely extended, then it is immeasurable.

Yes but I already said in my earlier post we will never know if it is infinite, because the esse doesn't carry any characteristics that would indicatei t being eternal or infinite.

You are applying properties to it, like polarities and vibrations, which must have some sort of dimensions, you can't have a vibrating nothing.
The opposite of nothing is something, and immediately when you have something, it has a property, and that property must always be existential, as such an existential property means that it must have a dimension, at least a dimension of existence, which is a property in itself, if that's the only property it has, then there's no indication that it will start to vibrate.

 

[sameandnot]

The ability to distinguish an entity within the oneness of the esse ocean is crucial if we are to somehow move from undifferentiated oneness to manifold reality. If that first step out of oneness is the establishment of some sort of polar entity, then we should have the means for further development.

i don't think that we are really thinking about the nature of such an esse. the One is not such that it is Two. Unless what we mean by esse, is the sea of vibration, which is the Two. The One cannot vibrate. This is essential to understand. THe One is One and is whole and undifferentiated; this is why it is the One... because it is not divided any where. are we seeing it more clearly now?
there can be no entity within the Oneness; that makes it Two. This is a very simple logical prerequisite of the One, but is not understood, here.
When we talk about the One we are talking about an undifferentiated wholeness, with no other present.
To admit the existence of the One is to submit to its being the Only existence. Two, is naught, when One is.
This is to say that, were we to Know the One and thereby be aware of it's being, Two must necessarily be naught. do you see?
this is like saying that the Two is shadow; once one sees the light, directly, the Two (shadow) is not.
To talk about oscillation or becoming signifies that the One is not known. The One completely destroys the idea of Two; in it's very nature.

I think that the problem here, is that we are considering a linear movement of physical events, proceeding from the One; where the One is some primordial state, which then develops the Two. It seems that we are thinking of this wrong.

The One can be nothing other than the beginning, the middle and the end.

It would be just as logical to talk about the Two developing into the One.
Both ways of talking, thinking (Two from One, One from Two) would both be missing the point of what the One is. If we accept the One then we must not accept such conditions of becoming, which are inherent in the Two. as the One is neither becoming nor changing.

The Two is the One.

this means that the perception and consideration of the Two is shortsighted; limited within the realm of the Two.

As was said in a previous post, about rationality, one must "go beyond"/"transcend" reason to see what reason is and be able to reason effectively, ultimately. in the same way, it appears, one must go beyond the Two, in order to see the Two most clearly; having known what is not the Two.

I do hope that people are reading this and really thinking about it, rather than just thinking of ways to "come back" or carry on as though it was not fundamentally important information.

I am calling into question the very idea of Esse which has hitherto been present in this discussion. namely, it's vibratory nature (which immediately calls into necessary existence the ideas of dividuation, space, time, and change... all are properties that can not be of the One.

please condider this before talking about the One or the Esse again, as the discussion will need to adapt, i am certain.

i may have been somewhat over-zealous in some previous posts, but it is only because i see this quite clearly, apparently.

we must re-consider the One and the Two and how the Two stands in relation to the One.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Yes but I already said in my earlier post we will never know if it is infinite, because the esse doesn't carry any characteristics that would indicatei t being eternal or infinite.
You are applying properties to it, like polarities and vibrations, which must have some sort of dimensions, you can't have a vibrating nothing.
The opposite of nothing is something, and immediately when you have something, it has a property, and that property must always be existential, as such an existential property means that it must have a dimension, at least a dimension of existence, which is a property in itself, if that's the only property it has, then there's no indication that it will start to vibrate.

Now you are thinking completely outside of this reasoning exercise. Nothing you are saying shows you understand what we are doing. If that isn't so, then how can you possibly say "there's no indication that it will start to vibrate"? We have already reasoned that because everything in this universe vibrates, and polarizes, that for a monistic modeling exercise the idea is to propose some more basic condition(s) which could lead to that. So there is every indication that our theoretical esse is vibrant, and that something in the theoretical esse ocean causes it to vibrate.

If you want to call a property a "dimension," fine, but that's not how it's normally used. I've clearly stated esse must have properties. It is sometlhing, it is uncreated stuff that can become all that we find here in this universe. You might have missed where in my explanation to Roamer that I said vibrancy is a secondary trait, that esse's most basic nature is that of homogeneous "illumination." I arrived at that from evidence and logic. Evidence-wise, that is a common report of the most successful meditators (that they join with an ocean of light). Logic-wise, as the universe radiates away its mass, light is what departs matter.

You know, if you don't like thinking about how it might be possible for a universe to narturally arise from esse, then you don't have to participate. I'm inviting people who to contribute who find the idea interesting.

 

[Les Sleeth]

i don't think that we are really thinking about the nature of such an esse. the One is not such that it is Two. Unless what we mean by esse, is the sea of vibration, which is the Two. The One cannot vibrate. This is essential to understand. THe One is One and is whole and undifferentiated; this is why it is the One... because it is not divided any where. are we seeing it more clearly now?

Is it more clear now? Yes, it’s clear you aren’t following the discussion and think you can pontificate on a subject which nobody really knows anything about. This is not the place for you to lay your realizations on us. You might be the seer you think you are, but it isn’t relevant to this discussion.

In THIS discussion, the idea is to assume there is one substance that makes up everything, and then use universal conditions we find in creation to imagine what that one stuff is like. I am not saying the one stuff actually exists, I am not expecting anyone to believe anything. This is just a “what if” and then an application of logic.

In the context of the theme of this thread, logic-wise your statements don’t make the slightest sense. For example, if the one cannot vibrate, then what is all the vibration doing here in creation? The idea of the one is that is encompasses all, it is the one reality, the one basis of all existence . . . So whatever forms we see must be a form of the one.

If vibration isn’t provided by the one, then there is no such thing as the one. In that case, what you are calling “one” is really just one of many different things that exist. But if it is THE one, then all that we see are manifestations of that one.

As I said to octelcogopod, this thread is just for people who are interested in participating in the monistic reasoning exercise. If you aren’t interested, then there are other venues, including starting your own threads, where you can do your own thing.

 

[sameandnot]

upon contemplation, it appears that this question is already closed. if we can stop deluding the process with false views about the One.

we say that the esse is the eternal flux of the Two, polarity/duality; that this cycle and play of the poles/duality never began and shall never end; beginningless/endless contraction and expansion, vibration, and cycle of dualities.

in duality is included the duality of matter/energy (which are neither created nor destroyed, but transmuted between the two) and we have our "stuff." oscillation from pure energy to matter is a natural course of the properties of the Two/"esse", so it is not illogical to consider energy to be the essential "stuff", though it might be perceived by some to be inconsistent; once energy is transmuted into matter, by reslut of the properties of oscillation that matter is subject to polarity and from there we can see an "obective" universe arising from even the smallest, most seemingly insignificant "specks" of matter.

we know the Two to be fundamentally and endlessly united as One; the Two are/is One, in essence.

The One, then, is the total unity of the Two.

it is easy to see how the play of duality/the poles/the complementary parts constitute the manifold forms of Reality, in time, and also how they are united, in the totality of time (and space), eternity, as One.

we do not have to think, it appears, about how the Two was derived from the One, but only how the Two is One.

The perception of the Two, then, is the crude perception of what is only One; a perception which is limited from its "being within."

the initial post points to this clearly and directly; particularly by way of the yin-yang image.

a "beginning" and "end," then, are the perceptions one has from "being within" a single framework of expansion and contraction. (say, a universe is said to have a beginning and end, because we are "within" it, but we would know, via the necessary eternality of the Two, it's beginning and end to be one of an eternal process of fluctuations between expansion and contraction)

So, then, the One is the Knowing of the Reality of what the Two is; the endlessly united/connected Nature of the Two; that the Two is only One, essentially.

so, it seems, we need only discuss how the Two has manifest such manifold forms, if we find it necessary to do so. It might, simply, be more fruitful to understand how the Two is One.

it appears to be a mis-guided search, if we are trying to determine how the One became Two, but I know that you want to know the "essential stuff" of creation, so you probably want to see what came before polarity; from whence polarity issued. you may find it insatisfactory to think that the essentail stuff is really of a dual nature, although it explains the fundamental "structuring" quality of creation.

in this way, we know the trinity of "creator, creation, creating" as being One and the same, along with the duality of the "opposites"/complements as One, as well. That the identification of the trinity, and duality as being Absolute Truths, are really "half-truths", if you will, in light of the essential unity that is Reality.

so, if the issue is "how the One became Two", we might be looking at it wrong, in light of the fact that the Two is, really, only One.

The oscillation of the Two is eternal in and as the One.

 

[octelcogopod]

Now you are thinking completely outside of this reasoning exercise. Nothing you are saying shows you understand what we are doing. If that isn't so, then how can you possibly say "there's no indication that it will start to vibrate"? We have already reasoned that because everything in this universe vibrates, and polarizes, that for a monistic modeling exercise the idea is to propose some more basic condition(s) which could lead to that. So there is every indication that our theoretical esse is vibrant, and that something in the theoretical esse ocean causes it to vibrate.
If you want to call a property a "dimension," fine, but that's not how it's normally used. I've clearly stated esse must have properties. It is sometlhing, it is uncreated stuff that can become all that we find here in this universe. You might have missed where in my explanation to Roamer that I said vibrancy is a secondary trait, that esse's most basic nature is that of homogeneous "illumination." I arrived at that from evidence and logic. Evidence-wise, that is a common report of the most successful meditators (that they join with an ocean of light). Logic-wise, as the universe radiates away its mass, light is what departs matter.
You know, if you don't like thinking about how it might be possible for a universe to narturally arise from esse, then you don't have to participate. I'm inviting people who to contribute who find the idea interesting.

If I didn't find it interesting I wouldn't have participated.
I'm just trying to figure out if my questions fit in your theory.
It seems we have completely different ideas on how the universe works, so I don't think we will ever come to an understanding.

 

[quantumcarl]

You missed the point big time here. No wonder you object. No one is saying that esse created the universe. We're saying that esse IS the universe

If "esse" is the universe then that would suggest a sort of "oneness".

However, in "twoness" it is required that esse be observed to exist.

ie: observer + observed = "twoness"
(however, again... the interdependence between these two elements creates a "oneness"... so its all very confusing)

Without being observed esse cannot be said to exist. This includes the act of esse observing itself and this is still a "twoness" system.

One is comprised of many parts

eg: 1 = .0000001 + .005 + .8 + .00000500000100000008 etc...

How can we call this oneness?

 

[sameandnot]

consider how the totality of existence is present in every moment.
consider the endless interconnection, of all parts, across the totality of time and space.
consider how the different parts of an orange are only one orange; the parts are nothing without the whole. (parts of an orange don't grow seperately, there are "parts" of an orange because an orange develops.)
so, we must concede that the Two (duality: up/down,expand/contract,energy/matter,positive/negative polarity, etc...) is really only One; there could be no positive, alone, without the negative. they are mutually dependant, so they are One; a unity of force.

 

[roamer]

I have to say that I am as confused as most others in understanding esse. I have many speculations on why this is and I'm certain I could come up with a bunch of hypothetical what ifs that we could use in debate against Les, but I'm uncertain if that is the best way to go about determining what it is Les is trying to say, after all Les is proposing an emperical model. I remember going through some modern physics classes, first the theory was explained, and almost everytime I just couldn't believe things could be that way. I even came up with a great number of arguments against thinking about things in that manner, but ultimately what mattered was how well the theories model agreed with observation. Obiously this situation is slightly different we are after all well beyond what we can physically verify, hence metaphysics, but still Les has proposed a model and at the very least the model can be judged on how well it explains things we do know about, like physical phenomenon. So I would actually just like to hear specifics on how this theory can model the physical universe. After this is explained then maybe philosophical exchanges would be more productive.

 

[Les Sleeth]

If "esse" is the universe then that would suggest a sort of "oneness".
However, in "twoness" it is required that esse be observed to exist.
ie: observer + observed = "twoness"
(however, again... the interdependence between these two elements creates a "oneness"... so its all very confusing)
Without being observed esse cannot be said to exist. This includes the act of esse observing itself and this is still a "twoness" system.
One is comprised of many parts
eg: 1 = .0000001 + .005 + .8 + .00000500000100000008 etc...
How can we call this oneness?

I am being 100% honest when I say I sure wish I could figure out what is confusing everybody. To me it seems simple, but then maybe that's because I've been thinking about it so long.

Your questions indicate you haven't accepted my definition for "twoness."

It doesn't mean observer and observed, for example. Just having two related things juxtaposed in some way doesn't create the kind of twoness I am talking about.

Twoness refers only to one dynamic, oscillation; plus, the fact that oscillation can lead to polarity. I often refer to twoness as "oscillatory dynamics." That's the reason I have talked about yin-yang philosophy.

If you pluck a taunt string, have you noticed how when vibrating it looks like there are two strings? That's because at the extremes of the oscillation points, the string stops and moves in the opposite direction. Because the string is vibrating so fast, relative to a slower observer that vibrating string actually establishes a bit of constancy in the polar positions.

Let's apply that example to esse. Esse is proposed to be a substance, a ground state substance which composes everything. It is the essence of existence, so to speak. If that is so, then all forms we see like a planet or a fork or hydrogen or consciousness . . .everything . . .is a form of esse.

If we imagine what esse is like before it takes form, we have to include potetials and properties that can become what we know to exist (like matter and consciousness). So in this thread, I suggested that because all of the universe vibrates and tends to exist in polar ways, and because if you notice how matter has a lot of energy compressed into it, possibly the ground state substance (esse) is vibrant, and the ocean where esse resides has compression-decompression dynamics going on all the time that would cause esse to compress.

So twoness is simply esse vibrating, under compression, so fast that two phases are established. In a compression-decompression oscillation cycle, there would be a compression phase and a decompression phase which would appear to a (relatively) non-moving observer to be simultaneously present. A hydrogen atom, for instance, has a dense concentrated center and a filmy cloud around it. Might it be a single polarized concentration of esse?

 

[Les Sleeth]

If I didn't find it interesting I wouldn't have participated.
I'm just trying to figure out if my questions fit in your theory.
It seems we have completely different ideas on how the universe works, so I don't think we will ever come to an understanding.

Sorry for letting my frustration show. The issue isn't so much "how" the universe works as it is "why." No one knows that, which is why we have string theory and the rest.

It seems you don't want to leave the safe realm of what we know exists, which makes you keep making points like "we can never know if it is infinite." But we aren't talking about what we can know right now, we are talking about what everyone agrees is unknowable at the moment.

Talking about what we don't currently know is what theorization is all about. All I have done is say, how about the type of theory where we start with an uncreated base substance and set of conditions. Let's see what that concept produces in the way of accounting for what we find here in the universe.

So my statement about you not being interested had to do with the fact that you keep saying "we don't know that." Well, of course we don't know it or why would be we be attempting to theorize? It doesn't make sense to join a theorization exercise and keep making the point about what we don't know.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I have to say that I am as confused as most others in understanding esse. I have many speculations on why this is and I'm certain I could come up with a bunch of hypothetical what ifs that we could use in debate against Les, but I'm uncertain if that is the best way to go about determining what it is Les is trying to say, after all Les is proposing an emperical model. . . . I would actually just like to hear specifics on how this theory can model the physical universe. After this is explained then maybe philosophical exchanges would be more productive.

I am guessing I am just not providing enough information, and I can't do so in the short span of a thread. Did you see from my last post to you (plus the diagrams) at least how esse ocean dynamics might compress esse?

 

[roamer]

Hey Les,
Yeah I did see your last post, and I also found it somewhat informative. I was just hopeing that you might take those diagrams a bit further. Since I don't really grasp the idea of esse and especially esse dynamics I wanted to see it in use. I was thinking you might be able to propose how this model of esse might line up with current theory like quantum mechanics and relativity. So what I'll do is just kind of take my wildest guess at how esse might model some physical properties. Bear in mind this is just an excercise in no way do I think this is right, I just wanted to show a crude speculation to see if it would stimulate people to try to model with esse.
So in your model oscillation is the result of compression, more compression equals faster oscillation. You also have in your model that many compressive forces can create a more stable symetrical oscillation that is polarization. So could radiation be described as a stable symterical oscillation or a polar entity losing some amount of compressive stability. The result would be that the esse formerly held in symetric compression is now less symetrically compressed and thus degrades to an oscillation. Perhaps the rate of this oscillation could be determined by the amount of compression that it is seeing. So if I were to draw an analogy to an atom, which is a polar entity in this model emitting an photon. I would conclude that rate of the oscillation of the photon would be a result of the amount of compression it sees. I would also conclude that some sort of breakdown of symetrical compressive forces on the atom must have occurred for the photon to be emitted. When I think about what causes oscillation in current science theory it seems that really intense compressive forces like those seen in stars can create radition or oscillations in this model. It also seems that higher compression of the stars results in emission of faster oscillations, or high energy radiation. Anways considering I really don't have a background in physics I'll stop rambling I just wanted to see if anyone else more well informed is trying to create a model.

 

[sameandnot]

i see how the concern here is really about the Two/esse. we are concerning ourselves with the ideal speculation about the Two, rather then the Philosophizing about how the Two is, in its essence. rather, we are more concerned with the mechanics of vibration rather than what the Two really is. The initial post, by les, was sufficient two show the nature of the esse as a vibratory existence; uncaused and uncreated; eternal, but were are still concerning over its mechanics, which is one endeavor we can choose to embark on. my concern is over the essence of the esse, being that which is One.

we are not different than the theoretical physicists in this regard, except that they have physics knowledge. It appeared to me that we were after Knowledge, in the greatest sense, rather than knowledge in the particular (dare i say, trivial) sense.

i do not find value in the quest of understanding the mechanics of the Two, beyond the fact that it is vibratory, and issues all forms from it's essential form; vibration/oscillation. (we can never say that the esse is formless, because it always has, as it's base, the form of vibration/oscillation.)
i see this understanding as sufficient, and am not concerned with developing more theories based on speculation, which are of no immediate concern to the Being of beings; being actualized through Knowledge of what the "biggest picture" is; Knowledge that actualizes as right action based on right Knowledge of Being.

this thread is concerned with "mind play", rather than how to be, in the face of the facts. Knowledge that leads to right action is the knowledge that I perceive as having value. the rest is complicating and seems to cloud virtue in a sea of confusion.

Philosophy has meaning only from a life lived philosophically. if we think that we are doing philosophy, by trying to determine the mechanics of that which is expressed by "yin/yang" and other such symbols, then i fail to find a true virtue in it. such a practice, it appears, is grounded in sophistry and is bound to produce empty rhetoric. but that is philosophy and perhaps i was wrong to think that that's what we were doing here.

i will sign off from this thread, unless someone is concerned with understanding the "big picture," as a whole, rather than tediously examing the particulars of the "big picture", for the sake of expounding theories, meant to bring one acclaim in "academic circles".

Real Knowledge is found in that which is absolutely uniting, rather than that which divides and sub-divides existence into smaller and smaller "parts", it seems to me. unfortunately, for those seeking acclaim in the academic field, this knowledge will not provide you will professorships or asteem of collegues but it will align the earnest seeker with Truth, and provide the ability to "see the forest through the trees".

good luck, lumberjacks. (pst... these trees are actually a forest...)

 

[roamer]

sameandnot,
Believe it or not I actually consider myself to be a person that does try to look at the forest and not get stuck on a tree, but I always seem to find that there are times when one tree can teach me a great deal about the forest, they are after all aspects of the same thing. I do like your reply about "...Knowledge that actualizes as right action based on right Knowledge of Being. " I too like to think that knowing the big picture will create beneficial actions, but even if you do know this "big picture" how are you going to explain it, maybe you should just start your own thread and explain the big picture, I'm certain people would be interested. I for one think it is at least helpful to try looking at the details even if they are always by going to be a tree in the forest. I don't think this is a problem as long is we both know its a tree.

 

[Les Sleeth]

So in your model oscillation is the result of compression, more compression equals faster oscillation. You also have in your model that many compressive forces can create a more stable symetrical oscillation that is polarization.

Here’s a case where my familiarity with this subject made me fail to explain totally. A crucially important part of the model is that the successive compressions that I hypothesized might accidentally take place in the esse ocean (Diagram 6 two posts ago to you) result in a self-sustaining “entity.” This entity is sustained by two factors.

First, compression has packed the entity with energy, and that ensures it has the power to endure (in this model, compression is energy). So the “multiple waves of compression” is a one-time thing that creates an entity, it isn’t maintained.

Second, it has two counterbalanced modes that have, through differentiation, achieved simultaneity of the modes. If you study the resulting entity in Diagram 6 you can see the two modes are a converged aspect counterbalanced by diverged aspect. That counterbalanced aspect is clearly structure, whereas esse before it participates in the “entitization” process is formless and unstructured. This is how I am suggesting structure, form, and order might arise from chaotic conditions.

If you recall, for this thread I asked if oscillatory dynamics might be the basis of order in the universe. An oscillatory entity will have not only a well-defined structure, but will oscillate rhythmically too, both of which are order. Further, fields generated from oscillatory dynamics also behave predictably, so fields too contribute to order.

So could radiation be described as a stable symmterical oscillation or a polar entity losing some amount of compressive stability. The result would be that the esse formerly held in symmetric compression is now less symmetrically compressed and thus degrades to an oscillation. Perhaps the rate of this oscillation could be determined by the amount of compression that it is seeing. So if I were to draw an analogy to an atom, which is a polar entity in this model emitting an photon. I would conclude that rate of the oscillation of the photon would be a result of the amount of compression it sees. I would also conclude that some sort of breakdown of symmetrical compressive forces on the atom must have occurred for the photon to be emitted. When I think about what causes oscillation in current science theory it seems that really intense compressive forces like those seen in stars can create radiation or oscillations in this model. It also seems that higher compression of the stars results in emission of faster oscillations, or high energy radiation.

That’s mostly right (intense compression can cause heavier matter to form, such as how helium is being formed from hydrogen in the interior of the Sun). The atom in our universe is THE main stable oscillatory entity. I’ve pointed this out before, but look at what determines the differences in types of matter. Mass. That is, as you move up the elemental chart, more and more mass is packed into each element. You can see the atom get more and more complicated in an oscillatory way too, with the basic counterbalanced unit (electron-proton differentiation) stabilized by a “neutral” unit (a neutron weighs almost exactly the same as a proton-electron).

Radiation, in this model, would be seen as waves of decompression, which the universe is doing as a whole too (expansion). If you look at background microwave radiation, as the universe expands, it is “stretched” and its oscillation rate slows down. And yes, the shorter (more compressed) the wavelength, the faster it oscillates. That’s why I say compression is energy. A photon is said to “lose” energy when its wavelength lengthens.

To be accurate, I can’t make sense with this model unless the entire universe is itself inside a polarized field; that’s needed to explain gravity and light speed, which I would represent as related in a polar way. It is complicated to explain, so I won’t try, but maybe intuitively you get a hint of what I mean.

You asked me to account for specifics in physics. One observation I can account for rather simply is matter and anti-matter. If you think about what an oscillatory entity is (like an atom), it has two primary directions of movement: the movement toward compression, and the movement toward decompression. Since the universe is decompressing overall, the rhythm of decompression-stage movement in particles prevails.

But if we could create a condition where the compression stage was emphasized (say, in a universe where compression was happening overall), it’s rhythm would be opposite a normal particle. If a particle whose orientation was that of moving toward compression were to meet up with a particle whose orientation was that of moving toward decompression, you can imagine what would happen. Diagram 7 represents the two orientations a simple hydrogen atom would assume oscillating between full convergence and then unfolded as an “atom.”

 

[Les Sleeth]

i see how the concern here is really about the Two/esse. we are concerning ourselves with the ideal speculation about the Two, rather then the Philosophizing about how the Two is, in its essence. rather, we are more concerned with the mechanics of vibration rather than what the Two really is. The initial post, by les, was sufficient two show the nature of the esse as a vibratory existence; uncaused and uncreated; eternal, but were are still concerning over its mechanics, which is one endeavor we can choose to embark on. my concern is over the essence of the esse, being that which is One.

we are not different than the theoretical physicists in this regard, except that they have physics knowledge. It appeared to me that we were after Knowledge, in the greatest sense, rather than knowledge in the particular (dare i say, trivial) sense.

i do not find value in the quest of understanding the mechanics of the Two, beyond the fact that it is vibratory, and issues all forms from it's essential form; vibration/oscillation. (we can never say that the esse is formless, because it always has, as it's base, the form of vibration/oscillation.)
i see this understanding as sufficient, and am not concerned with developing more theories based on speculation, which are of no immediate concern to the Being of beings; being actualized through Knowledge of what the "biggest picture" is; Knowledge that actualizes as right action based on right Knowledge of Being.

this thread is concerned with "mind play", rather than how to be, in the face of the facts. Knowledge that leads to right action is the knowledge that I perceive as having value. the rest is complicating and seems to cloud virtue in a sea of confusion.

Philosophy has meaning only from a life lived philosophically. if we think that we are doing philosophy, by trying to determine the mechanics of that which is expressed by "yin/yang" and other such symbols, then i fail to find a true virtue in it. such a practice, it appears, is grounded in sophistry and is bound to produce empty rhetoric. but that is philosophy and perhaps i was wrong to think that that's what we were doing here.

i will sign off from this thread, unless someone is concerned with understanding the "big picture," as a whole, rather than tediously examing the particulars of the "big picture", for the sake of expounding theories, meant to bring one acclaim in "academic circles".

Real Knowledge is found in that which is absolutely uniting, rather than that which divides and sub-divides existence into smaller and smaller "parts", it seems to me. unfortunately, for those seeking acclaim in the academic field, this knowledge will not provide you will professorships or asteem of collegues but it will align the earnest seeker with Truth, and provide the ability to "see the forest through the trees".

good luck, lumberjacks. (pst... these trees are actually a forest...)

It is hard to listen to a 22 year old with the belief he can lecture people on what is Truth. I"ve lived well over twice that long, studied much of the world's wisdom literature, and meditated daily for 30 years (longer than you've lived) yet I don't believe I am qualified to act like an all-knowing wise person. What qualifies you?

If you are so wise, then why are some of your assumptions downright silly? For example, because some of us talk about mechanics, why would you assume we aren't concerned about more important things. Geez, if all I ever did was go on about the ultimate I'd starve to death, and bore my friends to tears.

There is the ultimate thing, and there are manifestations of it. Both exist. This is just an exercise in exploring the possibility of a particular link between the two realms. Yet for you it seems it's been an opportunity to pontificate, and now in your final remarks to condescend.

I suggest dropping the all-knowing mystical baloney and get real.