Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: [steiner] heretics of reality/dimensions

Expand Messages
  • Durward Starman
    ******* I don t know of anywhere Steiner said there are only 8 dimensions. He lectured a lot about the fourth dimension, which was a large topic amongst
    Message 1 of 10 , Nov 9, 2006
      ******* I don't know of anywhere Steiner said there are only 8 dimensions.
      He lectured a lot about the fourth dimension, which was a large topic
      amongst Theosophists a century ago (those lectures have recently been
      published and are available from Steinerbooks).

      The 4th dimension sort of stands as a symbol for "a possible 4th and all
      other higher dimensions". One of the Theosophists working on this was P.D.
      Ouspensky, whose book "Tertium Organum" was recommended by the Edgar Cayce
      Readings fior understanding the 4th Dimension. (Interestingly, Cayce never
      recommended any of his later works, done aftrer Ouspensky came under the
      influence of Gurdjieff.) From working with the thinking & perception
      exercises in that for many years and studying projective geometry, I'd say
      there's no reason why there should be any limit on the number of dimensions
      in the universe. From the mathematicians' point of view they must be
      infinite.

      Starman

      www.DrStarman.com





      >From: "thepathofthesunflower" <thepathofthesunflower@...>
      >Reply-To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
      >To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
      >Subject: [steiner] heretics of reality
      >Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 07:28:13 -0000
      >
      >Hi Chantel
      >
      >Thanks for your reply. What you said makes good sense; looking at
      >things from a different perspective. This saying lends towards this;
      >
      >"If the nature of the correspondence between the higher and the lower
      >is understood, then the spiritual may be read through its physical
      >symbol". If i am correct Blake said this.
      >
      >I do think there a many dimensions to reality (did Steiner say there
      >are eight known dimensions in the physical plane) although the
      >physical also superimposed with the spiritual planes. How far or how
      >deep can we penetrate into these dimensions; entering into the fifth
      >dimension (although Im guessing at what number dimension) the world
      >then seems to become a stage - the actors and props seem to become
      >shadows waiting for senses to fill them in.
      >
      >This might be a follow on to Lee's discussions which I might just
      >copy my last line and carry on there .. and ponder at bit more
      >because his topic is the same as this 'heretic of reality' topic.
      >And it is a great mystery!
      >
      >Chantel; the meaning and history of heretic like in anti-organised
      >belief systems?
      >
      >My ponderings
      >Caryn
      >
      >
      >

      _________________________________________________________________
      Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more�then map the best
      route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001
    • Cheeseandsalsa@aol.com
      Chantel; the meaning and history of heretic like in anti-organised belief systems? The history of the heretic. The history and definition. We all seem to be
      Message 2 of 10 , Nov 9, 2006
        Chantel; the meaning and history of heretic like in anti-organised
        belief systems?

        The history of the heretic.  The history and definition.  We all seem to be heretics don't you think?  Honestly, we all are heretics of everything.  American Heritage Dictionary definition: "One who holds opinions that differ from established beliefs, esp. religious beliefs."  Furthermore, who establishes belief systems?  Should we trust them?  What is really established anyway?  This topic reminds me of the Spanish inquisition.  Isn't it just madness?  This dimension creates madness and belief systems are held in place for thousands of years.  Hale, the progress of the consciousness soul!  Thank god we survived the intellectual one!  In good fun, Chantel 
      • Cheeseandsalsa@aol.com
        I agree on the infinite number of dimensions. Also the time=dimension idea I enjoy that theory. In our modern time shall we say a dimension of an ancient
        Message 3 of 10 , Nov 9, 2006
          I agree on the infinite number of dimensions.  Also the time=dimension idea I enjoy that theory.  In our modern time shall we say a dimension of an ancient civilization can pop up in the year 2006?  For example imagine Ancient Egypt popping up in 2006?  It seems crazy but entertaining enough as a theory.  I'm not even a beginner on this topic however. ~good things, Chantel
        • thepathofthesunflower
          ... seem to be ... everything. ... that differ from ... establishes ... anyway? ... madness? ... place for ... soul! Thank god we ... Hi Chantel Yes, you so
          Message 4 of 10 , Nov 10, 2006
            --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Cheeseandsalsa@... wrote:
            >
            > Chantel; the meaning and history of heretic like in anti-organised
            > belief systems?
            >
            > The history of the heretic. The history and definition. We all
            seem to be
            > heretics don't you think? Honestly, we all are heretics of
            everything.
            > American Heritage Dictionary definition: "One who holds opinions
            that differ from
            > established beliefs, esp. religious beliefs." Furthermore, who
            establishes
            > belief systems? Should we trust them? What is really established
            anyway?
            > This topic reminds me of the Spanish inquisition. Isn't it just
            madness?
            > This dimension creates madness and belief systems are held in
            place for
            > thousands of years. Hale, the progress of the consciousness
            soul! Thank god we
            > survived the intellectual one! In good fun, Chantel

            Hi Chantel

            Yes, you so right we all heretics of one thing or another! Also, for
            example, my perception of one thing might be entirely different from
            your perception. Although it is the same object or belief the
            meaning it gives to you might be totally different from the meaning I
            take from it. Just as well else we'd be clones, robotic clones; just
            imagine that :) Caryn
          • thepathofthesunflower
            ... dimensions. ... topic ... been ... and all ... was P.D. ... Edgar Cayce ... Cayce never ... under the ... perception ... I d say ... dimensions ... be ...
            Message 5 of 10 , Nov 10, 2006
              --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "Durward Starman" <DrStarman@...>
              wrote:
              >
              > ******* I don't know of anywhere Steiner said there are only 8
              dimensions.
              > He lectured a lot about the fourth dimension, which was a large
              topic
              > amongst Theosophists a century ago (those lectures have recently
              been
              > published and are available from Steinerbooks).
              >
              > The 4th dimension sort of stands as a symbol for "a possible 4th
              and all
              > other higher dimensions". One of the Theosophists working on this
              was P.D.
              > Ouspensky, whose book "Tertium Organum" was recommended by the
              Edgar Cayce
              > Readings fior understanding the 4th Dimension. (Interestingly,
              Cayce never
              > recommended any of his later works, done aftrer Ouspensky came
              under the
              > influence of Gurdjieff.) From working with the thinking &
              perception
              > exercises in that for many years and studying projective geometry,
              I'd say
              > there's no reason why there should be any limit on the number of
              dimensions
              > in the universe. From the mathematicians' point of view they must
              be
              > infinite.
              >
              > Starman
              >
              > www.DrStarman.com
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > >From: "thepathofthesunflower" <thepathofthesunflower@...>
              > >Reply-To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
              > >To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
              > >Subject: [steiner] heretics of reality
              > >Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 07:28:13 -0000
              > >
              > >Hi Chantel
              > >
              > >Thanks for your reply. What you said makes good sense; looking at
              > >things from a different perspective. This saying lends towards
              this;
              > >
              > >"If the nature of the correspondence between the higher and the
              lower
              > >is understood, then the spiritual may be read through its physical
              > >symbol". If i am correct Blake said this.
              > >
              > >I do think there a many dimensions to reality (did Steiner say
              there
              > >are eight known dimensions in the physical plane) although the
              > >physical also superimposed with the spiritual planes. How far or
              how
              > >deep can we penetrate into these dimensions; entering into the
              fifth
              > >dimension (although Im guessing at what number dimension) the world
              > >then seems to become a stage - the actors and props seem to become
              > >shadows waiting for senses to fill them in.
              > >
              > >This might be a follow on to Lee's discussions which I might just
              > >copy my last line and carry on there .. and ponder at bit more
              > >because his topic is the same as this 'heretic of reality' topic.
              > >And it is a great mystery!
              > >
              > >Chantel; the meaning and history of heretic like in anti-organised
              > >belief systems?
              > >
              > >My ponderings
              > >Caryn
              > >
              > >
              > >
              >
              > _________________________________________________________________
              >
              Thanks for pointing this out Dr Starman; I did read eight dimensions
              somewhere a time ago. It might not have been Dr Steiner; I will go
              through my literature again and hopefully find this passage.

              My regards
              Caryn
            • thepathofthesunflower
              ... time=dimension idea ... of an ... imagine Ancient ... as a theory. ... Chantel ... Yes, imagine Ancient Egypt popping up in a shopping mall! Somehow I
              Message 6 of 10 , Nov 10, 2006
                --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Cheeseandsalsa@... wrote:
                >
                > I agree on the infinite number of dimensions. Also the
                time=dimension idea
                > I enjoy that theory. In our modern time shall we say a dimension
                of an
                > ancient civilization can pop up in the year 2006? For example
                imagine Ancient
                > Egypt popping up in 2006? It seems crazy but entertaining enough
                as a theory.
                > I'm not even a beginner on this topic however. ~good things,
                Chantel
                >

                Yes, imagine Ancient Egypt popping up in a shopping mall! Somehow I
                think Gravity acts as a stopper for this to happen in real time, if
                I'm correct.

                I also enjoy thinking about : time / space (could) = dimensions. I
                have this on hand from Dr Steiner from the book 'Life beyond Death'
                pg 213 lecture Berlin 5 Feb 1918;

                quote Dr Steiner-
                'There the saying is true, spoken with remarkable intuition by
                Richard Wagner:'Time becomes space' (taken from a scene in
                Parsifal)
                In the supersensible world, time really does become space - one point
                of space here, another there. Time is not past, but only a point of
                space, near or far; time actually becomes supersensible space ... but
                the past is not 'past' in the supersensible world. It is there; it
                remains, and to encounter it one needs only to relate oneself to
                another place. The past is just as little done away with as the
                house we have left to come here to-night. The house is in its place;
                so, too, in the supersensible world, the past is not gone but is in
                its place. It depends upon ourselves and upon how far we have gone
                from them, how near or far we are from the dead. We can be very far,
                or very near'.

                :)
              • Durward Starman
                ******* Well, as I said, I have worked with the book Tertium Organum by P. D. Ouspensky for many years, and it contains thinking exercises derived from the
                Message 7 of 10 , Nov 11, 2006
                  ******* Well, as I said, I have worked with the book "Tertium Organum" by P.
                  D. Ouspensky for many years, and it contains thinking exercises derived from
                  the work of the mathematician Hinton, the Theosophist that Steiner also
                  lectured on. I'll tell you a bit out of the book, but it's just like
                  iGoethe' s theory of colors ---- it's one thing to hear it as a theory, and
                  another to do the exercises and arrive at the perception yourself. So I'll
                  try to put it in a way we are you can see what's meant, rather than just say
                  that the theory says this and that.

                  One of the starting points mathematicians used to approach understanding
                  the fourth dimension a century ago was what was then the well-known "
                  Flatland analogy". If you imagine a plane of two dimensions and a being
                  living in it, he or she or it would only be able to perceive what is in that
                  plane. A three-dimensional object -- -- -- or rather, an object which WE can
                  perceive in three dimensions -- -- -- could only be known by the plane being
                  as the section of it which is in its plane. Imagine a cube, for instance,
                  passing through the "flatlander's" plane: if it passed through it
                  perpendicular to the plane, the plane being could perceive only a SQUARE. as
                  that section of the cube passed through its plane. If it didn't pass
                  through perpendicularly, but rather first one corner passed through, then
                  the rest of the cube, the plane being would sense a changing variety of
                  figures, starting from a point when the corner first penetrated the plane,
                  expanding into a growing square, and so forth. {This would of course be
                  easier to explain with the help of drawings, but most people here have their
                  e-mail set to either not rerceive images included or attached, or else they
                  just go to the web site to read the messages, and embedded images are not
                  saved there, so if I go through all the trouble of creating the drawings and
                  then refer to them, what I say would make no sense to somebody unable to see
                  them. C'est la vie....)

                  Hinton and Ouspensky go from this to analogize our experience of
                  three-dimensional space. Whatever one a being cannot sense as a dimension of
                  space, it senses as changes in the space it can perceive. So, if we see a
                  series of changes in three-dimensional space, that can be understood as an
                  object having a fourth dimension which we can't perceive as one, passing
                  through our three-dimensional space. In other words, the higher dimensions
                  of the objects in the world around us ---- which we cannot yet perceive as
                  dimensions the way we currently perceive the length, width and depth of
                  objects----- instead of being perceived as a static dimension of space in an
                  object, appear to us as a series of CHANGES to our space, in other words
                  what we call change in time.

                  So, the appearance of a plant out of its seed into its young form, then
                  the lower shoot becoming the root and the upper shoot the stem, the growth
                  of leaves, then the formation of flowers and fruit---- all this is a series
                  of changes in an object through time to us, but to a being who can see the
                  fourth and other higher dimensions, those are all parts of the object's
                  shape. It does not come into existence and then disappear in time, but
                  rather that appears to happen to us because of the limitation of our
                  perceptions----- just as, before a cube passes through the Flatlander's
                  space, the square section of the cube that he will perceive, he would say is
                  in the future, while once it passes through the plane, he would say the
                  figures that appeared in his space are now something in the past.

                  This is the true connection between the idea of the fourth dimension, or
                  rather fourth and all possible higher dimensions, and Time. Many people were
                  experimenting with these ideas a century ago, but the person who arrived at
                  the true solution, Ouspensky, was largely ignored, while the person who
                  arrived at the false solution, Einstein, was made into a god by people who
                  proclaimed he had solved a great mystery while not understanding his stupid
                  theory in the least. (I'm speaking about his general theory of relativity,
                  which is an absurd mishmash and which has completely ruined the ability of
                  people to think about these things in the way that helps lead to the
                  spiritual aspect -- but then, one couldn't expect anything Einstein did to
                  lead to the spiritual. Just look at the way he treated his wife, and the way
                  he led a spaced-out life in New Jersey. It's absolutely amazing how the
                  scientific establishment has put him over as an intellectual giant to people
                  who never study what he actually speculated---- but then look how they've
                  made everyone believers in Darwin whose followers have still found zero
                  evidence for his theory. )

                  In relation to human life, as you say this also leads to an understanding
                  of how one period of time is related to another. There's another great book,
                  " A Dweller on Two Planets", a history of Atlantis which was spirit-dictated
                  in the 1880s to a young man in California by a being who called himself
                  Phylos the Thibetan, which Edgar Cayce used to quote from in his readings
                  and which is well worth studying by anthroposophists. In it he also explains
                  the correspondence of epochs by the analogy of a screw thread passing
                  through a plane: with a full turn, you are back at the same place on the
                  screw but on a higher level. So he says we in America are Atlantis come
                  back, but not exactly the same as Atlantis was, because we have progressed.
                  Looking at a shorter period of time, our age can also be understood as a
                  repetition of the Egyptian civilization according to Steiner.

                  The correspondence, like many other phenomena, is understandable once
                  you expand the concepts "object" and "dimensions" as Tertium Orgnaum shows a
                  way to do. But as I said, just hearing someone summarize it is very
                  different from doing the thinking/perception exercises yourself. That's a
                  great place to begin.

                  -Starman


                  [steiner] heretics of reality/dimensions
                  >Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 14:57:22 EST
                  >
                  >I agree on the infinite number of dimensions. Also the time=dimension
                  >idea
                  >I enjoy that theory. In our modern time shall we say Theosophist dimension
                  >of an
                  >ancient civilization can pop up in the year 2006? For example imagine
                  >Ancient
                  >Egypt popping up in 2006? It seems crazy but entertaining enough as a
                  >theory.
                  >I'm not even a beginner on this topic however. ~good things, Chantel

                  _________________________________________________________________
                  Add a Yahoo! contact to Windows Live Messenger for a chance to win a free
                  trip!
                  http://www.imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/yahoo/default.aspx?locale=en-us&hmtagline
                • thepathofthesunflower
                  ... Organum by P. ... derived from ... also ... like ... theory, and ... So I ll ... just say ... understanding ... known ... being ... is in that ... which
                  Message 8 of 10 , Nov 13, 2006
                    --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "Durward Starman" <DrStarman@...>
                    wrote:
                    >
                    > ******* Well, as I said, I have worked with the book "Tertium
                    Organum" by P.
                    > D. Ouspensky for many years, and it contains thinking exercises
                    derived from
                    > the work of the mathematician Hinton, the Theosophist that Steiner
                    also
                    > lectured on. I'll tell you a bit out of the book, but it's just
                    like
                    > iGoethe' s theory of colors ---- it's one thing to hear it as a
                    theory, and
                    > another to do the exercises and arrive at the perception yourself.
                    So I'll
                    > try to put it in a way we are you can see what's meant, rather than
                    just say
                    > that the theory says this and that.
                    >
                    > One of the starting points mathematicians used to approach
                    understanding
                    > the fourth dimension a century ago was what was then the well-
                    known "
                    > Flatland analogy". If you imagine a plane of two dimensions and a
                    being
                    > living in it, he or she or it would only be able to perceive what
                    is in that
                    > plane. A three-dimensional object -- -- -- or rather, an object
                    which WE can
                    > perceive in three dimensions -- -- -- could only be known by the
                    plane being
                    > as the section of it which is in its plane. Imagine a cube, for
                    instance,
                    > passing through the "flatlander's" plane: if it passed through it
                    > perpendicular to the plane, the plane being could perceive only a
                    SQUARE. as
                    > that section of the cube passed through its plane. If it didn't
                    pass
                    > through perpendicularly, but rather first one corner passed
                    through, then
                    > the rest of the cube, the plane being would sense a changing
                    variety of
                    > figures, starting from a point when the corner first penetrated the
                    plane,
                    > expanding into a growing square, and so forth. {This would of
                    course be
                    > easier to explain with the help of drawings, but most people here
                    have their
                    > e-mail set to either not rerceive images included or attached, or
                    else they
                    > just go to the web site to read the messages, and embedded images
                    are not
                    > saved there, so if I go through all the trouble of creating the
                    drawings and
                    > then refer to them, what I say would make no sense to somebody
                    unable to see
                    > them. C'est la vie....)
                    >
                    > Hinton and Ouspensky go from this to analogize our experience of
                    > three-dimensional space. Whatever one a being cannot sense as a
                    dimension of
                    > space, it senses as changes in the space it can perceive. So, if we
                    see a
                    > series of changes in three-dimensional space, that can be
                    understood as an
                    > object having a fourth dimension which we can't perceive as one,
                    passing
                    > through our three-dimensional space. In other words, the higher
                    dimensions
                    > of the objects in the world around us ---- which we cannot yet
                    perceive as
                    > dimensions the way we currently perceive the length, width and
                    depth of
                    > objects----- instead of being perceived as a static dimension of
                    space in an
                    > object, appear to us as a series of CHANGES to our space, in other
                    words
                    > what we call change in time.
                    >
                    > So, the appearance of a plant out of its seed into its young
                    form, then
                    > the lower shoot becoming the root and the upper shoot the stem, the
                    growth
                    > of leaves, then the formation of flowers and fruit---- all this is
                    a series
                    > of changes in an object through time to us, but to a being who can
                    see the
                    > fourth and other higher dimensions, those are all parts of the
                    object's
                    > shape. It does not come into existence and then disappear in time,
                    but
                    > rather that appears to happen to us because of the limitation of
                    our
                    > perceptions----- just as, before a cube passes through the
                    Flatlander's
                    > space, the square section of the cube that he will perceive, he
                    would say is
                    > in the future, while once it passes through the plane, he would say
                    the
                    > figures that appeared in his space are now something in the past.
                    >
                    > This is the true connection between the idea of the fourth
                    dimension, or
                    > rather fourth and all possible higher dimensions, and Time. Many
                    people were
                    > experimenting with these ideas a century ago, but the person who
                    arrived at
                    > the true solution, Ouspensky, was largely ignored, while the person
                    who
                    > arrived at the false solution, Einstein, was made into a god by
                    people who
                    > proclaimed he had solved a great mystery while not understanding
                    his stupid
                    > theory in the least. (I'm speaking about his general theory of
                    relativity,
                    > which is an absurd mishmash and which has completely ruined the
                    ability of
                    > people to think about these things in the way that helps lead to
                    the
                    > spiritual aspect -- but then, one couldn't expect anything Einstein
                    did to
                    > lead to the spiritual. Just look at the way he treated his wife,
                    and the way
                    > he led a spaced-out life in New Jersey. It's absolutely amazing
                    how the
                    > scientific establishment has put him over as an intellectual giant
                    to people
                    > who never study what he actually speculated---- but then look how
                    they've
                    > made everyone believers in Darwin whose followers have still found
                    zero
                    > evidence for his theory. )
                    >
                    > In relation to human life, as you say this also leads to an
                    understanding
                    > of how one period of time is related to another. There's another
                    great book,
                    > " A Dweller on Two Planets", a history of Atlantis which was spirit-
                    dictated
                    > in the 1880s to a young man in California by a being who called
                    himself
                    > Phylos the Thibetan, which Edgar Cayce used to quote from in his
                    readings
                    > and which is well worth studying by anthroposophists. In it he also
                    explains
                    > the correspondence of epochs by the analogy of a screw thread
                    passing
                    > through a plane: with a full turn, you are back at the same place
                    on the
                    > screw but on a higher level. So he says we in America are Atlantis
                    come
                    > back, but not exactly the same as Atlantis was, because we have
                    progressed.
                    > Looking at a shorter period of time, our age can also be understood
                    as a
                    > repetition of the Egyptian civilization according to Steiner.
                    >
                    > The correspondence, like many other phenomena, is
                    understandable once
                    > you expand the concepts "object" and "dimensions" as Tertium
                    Orgnaum shows a
                    > way to do. But as I said, just hearing someone summarize it is very
                    > different from doing the thinking/perception exercises yourself.
                    That's a
                    > great place to begin.
                    >
                    > -Starman
                    >
                    >
                    Hi

                    I have one book of PD Ouspensky's 'The psychology of man's possible
                    evolution' which I throughly enjoyed and think it deserve's a re-
                    reading soon. I wouldn't mind reading Tertium Orgnaum.

                    I totally agree with what you say regarding Einstein. If i am right
                    to say this train of 'undimensional squashed thought' started with
                    Aristotle disregarding the quintessence, the very susbstance which
                    holds things together. Because it cannot be measured it is
                    disregarded.

                    Democractic intelligence reaching its point of no return; me thinks.

                    It is co-incidential you write about Atlantis, Starman. Over the
                    weekend I was re-reading 'Lemuria the lost continent of the Pacific'
                    published by the Rosicrucian Order of California 1931. And what you
                    say in America .. Atlantis come back. It does seem like a cycle, Dr
                    Steiner's Samsara symbol might describe this well on a macro scale.

                    To me; what is happening in the world today is exactly the same prior
                    to the destruction of Atlantis the only thing which is different is
                    the background.

                    Although, the Atlantians and prior the Lemurians had reached
                    a 'civilization' (not our understanding of civilization today) far
                    beyond ours of today. They were so advanced in their relationship to
                    the Cosmic Mind. First of all operating in a moneyless society
                    (shows are great deal of maurity to do this) and second having their
                    pineal organ developed to such a degree that sixth sense connecting
                    to the Cosmic mind was normal. Also they had knowledge of the fill
                    potential use of minerals and metals; therefore having air and sea
                    vehicles.

                    With the sinking of these two great continents and migrating (to the
                    East and Egypt) This organ become under-developed. It was a literal
                    organ - a 'bump' protruding from the forehead. It is said with
                    practice in developing this organ it will come back through the
                    generations. California is part of the original Lemuria, very
                    special.

                    Interesting you also talk about the writings 'A Dweller on Two
                    Planets' dictated by the being Phylos talking about Atlantis, to
                    someone in California.

                    I have a book 'Atlantis to the Latter Days' It is known as
                    the 'Osirian Scripts' inspirationally dictated to HC Randall-Stevens
                    by the Masters Oneferu and Adolemy of the Osirian Group. Adolemy
                    being incarnate under the name Osiraes (not to be confused with
                    Osiris) in the reigns of Amenhotep III & IV and Oneferu been
                    incarnate under the name of Men-Aton during the reign of Akhnaton. It
                    is published by The Knights Templars of Aquarius 1957. It was said HC
                    Randall-Stevens is the incarnation of El Eros and a later incarnation
                    of Akhnaton.

                    It is a dedication of Adam Ptah El Daoud and his divine twin Evam, to
                    the master teachers of Earth.

                    A wonderful find (in a second hand-book shop a few years ago) I am
                    sure here we will find parallels to the writings you have on
                    Atlantis. It is said the 'latter' days is the shift of the sun from
                    Pisces into Aquarius.

                    Getting a bit off the subject of dimensions; but maybe not really
                    because possibly the dimensions is discovering these worlds; as the
                    metaphor of the plant - releasing the element of scent.

                    Have a great day.
                    Caryn
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.