The problem with Larson's system is it's 'Yang' oriented with Euclidean geometry necessarily being used to interpret both spatial and temporal reference systems. Of course, since yin = yang, that's quite valid, but I believe it will ultimate cause unnecessary difficulty - like trying to 'square the circle'.
In an interesting dialog with Ilexa Yardley, author of "Conservation of the Circle as Absolute Intelligence", she writes:
So part of her idea is that any two points form a circle. With scalar motion in the Reciprocal System, unit-space and unit-time are 1 dimensional and therefore could be completely defined using just 2 points, although given the Euclidean geometry context that Larson provides in his descriptions, we can't help but impose a 3d-box interpretation of the Natural Reference System (NRS).
The most basic circle, is a (circular interpretation of) translation itself - which is the equivalent of nothing (in the Reciprocal System, this is the "progression"). Also, the "circle" is not only form - it is the function of the cycle, the basis for continuity and concepts involving integration.
In the same manner, and at the same level, the "line" is what makes things discrete or seperating or heirarchical, and the device (i.e. thinking faculty) used to objectify experience and to create utility. The "line" is where we get a sound from a tree falling in a forest with no one to hear it.
Are all things are inherently neutral with regards to spatial or temporal qualitative nature? No, because all things (even sub atomic particles) have a subjective element (which necessarily means a corresponding objective element) as part of their ontological status. This subjective nature is the basis for "choice" and the multiplicity of reference systems. Larson refered to this "choice" as "random" behavior.
Fundamentally, what we impose as an interpretive framework usually involves a combination of the two most basic forms of circle and line, and a coupling of two reference systems which are both subjectively and objectively oriented. As far as I know, this is an explanation of why we can not know a ding an sich.
So for me, a more intuitive way of looking at 'motion' is
o The most fundamental motion possible is translation, which can be both rotational and linear, depending on which side of the fence you want ('over here' or 'over there')
o "Translation", in those initial two forms, is what constitutes the building block of motion. Then you get a rotational projection of a linear translation for the "integrative" view and a linear projection of rotational translation for the "differentiating" view.
o A particle is the limiting case of the wave, the wave is the limiting case of a particle. Then on to more complexity.
When considered in its 1st density form only, "Body" of the m/b/s construct *is* physical motion (which Larson's system of theory is attempting to describe).
With the Hermetic dictum "as above, so below", above = mind, below = body:
"The Matrix of the Body may be seen to be a reflection in opposites of the mind; that is, unrestricted motion."
"The body is the creature of the mind and is the instrument of manifestation for the fruits of mind and spirit"
The physical universe is a "body" principle. The arbitrary interpretation/definition of this body requires mind.
"Mind" is a principle that provides structure, organization, and growth.
At 1st density, "time" can be considered to be the "mind" of space (as an analog, of course). Alexander actually says something very similar.
In an interesting dialog with Ilexa Yardley, author of "Conservation of the Circle as Absolute Intelligence", she writes:
Ilexa Yardley Wrote:We are what we are observing and experiencing...all circles in time and space. We are everything we observe, from a slightly different (circular) perspective.
Yes, one iteration of a circle is a harmonic vibration...but any two points form a circle, because, and this is the big insight, all lines are the diameter of some circle...so circles are caused, and causing circles, and that's really all there is to it.
So part of her idea is that any two points form a circle. With scalar motion in the Reciprocal System, unit-space and unit-time are 1 dimensional and therefore could be completely defined using just 2 points, although given the Euclidean geometry context that Larson provides in his descriptions, we can't help but impose a 3d-box interpretation of the Natural Reference System (NRS).
Ilexa Yardley Wrote:(the photon is not the most basic'circle'...the circle (in form) is....
The most basic circle, is a (circular interpretation of) translation itself - which is the equivalent of nothing (in the Reciprocal System, this is the "progression"). Also, the "circle" is not only form - it is the function of the cycle, the basis for continuity and concepts involving integration.
In the same manner, and at the same level, the "line" is what makes things discrete or seperating or heirarchical, and the device (i.e. thinking faculty) used to objectify experience and to create utility. The "line" is where we get a sound from a tree falling in a forest with no one to hear it.
Are all things are inherently neutral with regards to spatial or temporal qualitative nature? No, because all things (even sub atomic particles) have a subjective element (which necessarily means a corresponding objective element) as part of their ontological status. This subjective nature is the basis for "choice" and the multiplicity of reference systems. Larson refered to this "choice" as "random" behavior.
Fundamentally, what we impose as an interpretive framework usually involves a combination of the two most basic forms of circle and line, and a coupling of two reference systems which are both subjectively and objectively oriented. As far as I know, this is an explanation of why we can not know a ding an sich.
So for me, a more intuitive way of looking at 'motion' is
o The most fundamental motion possible is translation, which can be both rotational and linear, depending on which side of the fence you want ('over here' or 'over there')
o "Translation", in those initial two forms, is what constitutes the building block of motion. Then you get a rotational projection of a linear translation for the "integrative" view and a linear projection of rotational translation for the "differentiating" view.
o A particle is the limiting case of the wave, the wave is the limiting case of a particle. Then on to more complexity.
When considered in its 1st density form only, "Body" of the m/b/s construct *is* physical motion (which Larson's system of theory is attempting to describe).
With the Hermetic dictum "as above, so below", above = mind, below = body:
"The Matrix of the Body may be seen to be a reflection in opposites of the mind; that is, unrestricted motion."
"The body is the creature of the mind and is the instrument of manifestation for the fruits of mind and spirit"
The physical universe is a "body" principle. The arbitrary interpretation/definition of this body requires mind.
"Mind" is a principle that provides structure, organization, and growth.
At 1st density, "time" can be considered to be the "mind" of space (as an analog, of course). Alexander actually says something very similar.