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

Re: heretics of reality/dimensions

Expand Messages
  • thepathofthesunflower
    ... dimensions. ... topic ... been ... and all ... was P.D. ... Edgar Cayce ... Cayce never ... under the ... perception ... I d say ... dimensions ... be ...
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.