... but isn't the question about which direction we should go?
Ashvin ... the 'downward' attraction I'm referring to is speculation about trans-corporeal entities being attracted to experiencing to the corporeal realm, and if so, I see no reason why that should not be a valid attraction.
Btw, I did post the chat between JP and the illustrator of Beyond Order in the Arts section, in which they discuss the symbolic meaning of each illustration, and which I very much recommend.
Here out of instinct or grace we seek
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
AshvinP wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 12:04 am
Surely we can be attracted in both directions if our choices have meaning, but isn't the question about which direction we should go? We can't go up and down at the same time without remaining still, which sounds a lot like death to me.
We sure can go both ways, even simultaneously, when we stop categorically committing to a logical axiom that bans 'both - and', such as LEM.
When the form in question is a palindrome, e.g.
Never odd or even
it can be argued that no matter which way we go, we always go both ways. And we can train our eyes to read (short) palindromes from both left and right also simultaneously. This is significant especially in context of physicalist theories, as notion of time in quantum mechanics is palindromic.
The original context of this discussion was chakra systems and flows of Kundalini etc. energies. In my experience it's very important to get the juices going both (and other!) ways, whether spontaneously or by conscious practice. The simultaneous aspect can be hard for conscious thought and imagination, as it has been conditioned, but far from impossible. You don't stay still, as the energy flows are not separate from you, you are those.
AshvinP wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 12:04 am
Surely we can be attracted in both directions if our choices have meaning, but isn't the question about which direction we should go? We can't go up and down at the same time without remaining still, which sounds a lot like death to me.
We sure can go both ways, even simultaneously, when we stop categorically committing to a logical axiom that bans 'both - and', such as LEM.
When the form in question is a palindrome, e.g.
Never odd or even
it can be argued that no matter which way we go, we always go both ways. And we can train our eyes to read (short) palindromes from both left and right also simultaneously. This is significant especially in context of physicalist theories, as notion of time in quantum mechanics is palindromic.
The original context of this discussion was chakra systems and flows of Kundalini etc. energies. In my experience it's very important to get the juices going both (and other!) ways, whether spontaneously or by conscious practice. The simultaneous aspect can be hard for conscious thought and imagination, as it has been conditioned, but far from impossible. You don't stay still, as the energy flows are not separate from you, you are those.
I feel like Cleric already dealt with this objection in his see-saw analogy. What we perceive to be both-and dualities on this see-saw do not necessarily cash out the same way on 'higher order' see-saws we are on. And the 'upward' progression we seek is the expansion of our consciousness to engulf more of the see-saws our particular see-saw is balancing on. As he stated, analogies like this one are limited and should be taken as such, but I still found it an extremely helpful one.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
... but isn't the question about which direction we should go?
Ashvin ... the 'downward' attraction I'm referring to is speculation about trans-corporeal entities being attracted to experiencing to the corporeal realm, and if so, I see no reason why that should not be a valid attraction.
Btw, I did post the chat between JP and the illustrator of Beyond Order in the Arts section, in which they discuss the symbolic meaning of each illustration, and which I very much recommend.
Got it. Well that's a very interesting and deep question. I am inclined to say that, within our current temporal framework of understanding, the 'involutionary' process already culminated with the incarnation of Christ. No doubt there will be other such phases in the future, but it seems right now man must first be raised to God.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
AshvinP wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 1:23 am
I feel like Cleric already dealt with this objection in his see-saw analogy. What we perceive to be both-and dualities on this see-saw do not necessarily cash out the same way on 'higher order' see-saws we are on. And the 'upward' progression we seek is the expansion of our consciousness to engulf more of the see-saws our particular see-saw is balancing on. As he stated, analogies like this one are limited and should be taken as such, but I still found it an extremely helpful one.
The comment was not about abstract theory, but concrete and sensual.
In the abstract domain, intuitionist logic without LEM does not really differentiate from classical logic in the finite area of math. Intuitionist logic originates in criticism of Hilbert's extension of LEM to transfinite/infinite domains, which leads to loss of constructibility. Brouwer and others criticized that loss of constructibility leads to loss of consistency and violates LNC.
In other words, transfinite/infinite MAL holding on to LEM would not be able to construct alters that can consistently communicate. If you think that your feet are in your head, and that feet can't be both left and right, your feet go crazy and you can't walk normally.
AshvinP wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 1:23 am
I feel like Cleric already dealt with this objection in his see-saw analogy. What we perceive to be both-and dualities on this see-saw do not necessarily cash out the same way on 'higher order' see-saws we are on. And the 'upward' progression we seek is the expansion of our consciousness to engulf more of the see-saws our particular see-saw is balancing on. As he stated, analogies like this one are limited and should be taken as such, but I still found it an extremely helpful one.
The comment was not about abstract theory, but concrete and sensual.
In the abstract domain, intuitionist logic without LEM does not really differentiate from classical logic in the finite area of math. Intuitionist logic originates in criticism of Hilbert's extension of LEM to transfinite/infinite domains, which leads to loss of constructibility. Brouwer and others criticized that loss of constructibility leads to loss of consistency and violates LNC.
In other words, transfinite/infinite MAL holding on to LEM would not be able to construct alters that can consistently communicate. If you think that your feet are in your head, and that feet can't be both left and right, your feet go crazy and you can't walk normally.
I will need to think on that some more before responding, because that's pretty damn abstract as far as abstractions go
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
SanteriSatama wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 9:21 am
In the abstract domain, intuitionist logic without LEM does not really differentiate from classical logic in the finite area of math. Intuitionist logic originates in criticism of Hilbert's extension of LEM to transfinite/infinite domains, which leads to loss of constructibility. Brouwer and others criticized that loss of constructibility leads to loss of consistency and violates LNC.
In other words, transfinite/infinite MAL holding on to LEM would not be able to construct alters that can consistently communicate. If you think that your feet are in your head, and that feet can't be both left and right, your feet go crazy and you can't walk normally.
I will need to think on that some more before responding, because that's pretty damn abstract as far as abstractions go
Yeah, it's not easy, and I also keep struggling and digesting the critical aspects of logic in my slow pace. My efforts to give concrete examples should be taken with a grain of salt, as the silly walk joke suggested.
A further note on your earlier "still = dead" comment. You can lie or sit still, but as long as you breath in and out, expanding and deflating, you are alive. As long as you breath (Latin aspirare), the Spirit is in you. Very simple. It gets more complex when we start to explore different ways and forms of breathing/spirit, such as plant breathing etc.
Sure enough, continuing that thought, between each breath is a tiny duration of still, and that can be expanded into longer durations of still. If absence of breathing is death, then it's consistent to say that death is also always present, and we are both dead and alive on the lever where we observe both the movement of breathing and pauses of breathing. Acceptance of that both-and can be very hard. It was so in my case.
SanteriSatama wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 9:21 am
In the abstract domain, intuitionist logic without LEM does not really differentiate from classical logic in the finite area of math. Intuitionist logic originates in criticism of Hilbert's extension of LEM to transfinite/infinite domains, which leads to loss of constructibility. Brouwer and others criticized that loss of constructibility leads to loss of consistency and violates LNC.
In other words, transfinite/infinite MAL holding on to LEM would not be able to construct alters that can consistently communicate. If you think that your feet are in your head, and that feet can't be both left and right, your feet go crazy and you can't walk normally.
I will need to think on that some more before responding, because that's pretty damn abstract as far as abstractions go
Yeah, it's not easy, and I also keep struggling and digesting the critical aspects of logic in my slow pace. My efforts to give concrete examples should be taken with a grain of salt, as the silly walk joke suggested.
A further note on your earlier "still = dead" comment. You can lie or sit still, but as long as you breath in and out, expanding and deflating, you are alive. As long as you breath (Latin aspirare), the Spirit is in you. Very simple. It gets more complex when we start to explore different ways and forms of breathing/spirit, such as plant breathing etc.
Sure enough, continuing that thought, between each breath is a tiny duration of still, and that can be expanded into longer durations of still. If absence of breathing is death, then it's consistent to say that death is also always present, and we are both dead and alive on the lever where we observe both the movement of breathing and pauses of breathing. Acceptance of that both-and can be very hard. It was so in my case.
So my still=death comment was in reference to this concept that everything must be balanced out and therefore it is wrong to speak of ascension without descension, upward movement of consciousness without downward, etc. Cleric discussed the ways in which such a maxim would become absurd and unproductive, such as we must strive for health and sickness at the same time, truth and lies, wisdom and stupidity, etc. Do you disagree?
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
