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

Re: [steiner] heretics of reality/dimensions

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 10 , Nov 9, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 10 , Nov 10, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- 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 3 of 10 , Nov 10, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          --- 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 4 of 10 , Nov 10, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            --- 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 5 of 10 , Nov 11, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              ******* 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 6 of 10 , Nov 13, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                --- 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.