I am interested in starting a tread related to the physics and metaphysics of Dewey B. Larson and his Reciprocal System of Theories (RST). You will recall Don Elkins mentioning Mr. Larson several times in the LOO, the most notable of which to me being:
"Ra, Book I, Session 20 Wrote:Questioner:I am aware of the physics of Dewey B. Larson, who states that all is motion or vibration. Am I correct in assuming that the basic vibration that makes up the physical world changes, thus creating a different set of parameters, shall I say, in this short period of time between density changes allowing for the new type of being? Am I correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.
Questioner: Is the physics of Dewey Larson correct?
Ra: I am Ra. The physics of sound vibrational complex, Dewey, is a correct system as far as it is able to go. There are those things which are not included in this system. However, those coming after this particular entity, using the basic concepts of vibration and the study of vibrational distortions, will begin to understand that which you know as gravity and those things you consider as “n” dimensions. These things are necessary to be included in a more universal, shall we say, physical theory.
Questioner: Did this entity, Dewey, then bring this material through for use primarily in the fourth density?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.
Dewey Larson died in 1990, leaving the world with the remarkable RST. Mr. Larson notes many problems in modern physics, including in Einstein's Special and General Theories of Relativity and our very concept of the nuclear atom. This is rather terse and technical reading, and not for the faint of heart, but Mr. Larson's overall foundation of his theory was that the entire universe is a universe of motion. And even where there is no relative motion visible, all of the universe (others call it the "aether") is moving at a constant underlying rate of 1 unit of space / 1 unit of time. The fundamental insight of Mr. Larson is that of
unity. The absence of any relative difference is not
zero, it is
unity , and as it turns out, unit velocity is at the speed of light.
As I was working through his technical and logical discussions, this one observation resonated with me so strongly, that I felt instinctively its accuracy. So, from this, we find the creator is at
unity, and his polarity is not zero, it is
unity, or "oneness". Where everything meets.
Also from RST came, to me at least, a better understanding of the often misunderstood concept of "distortion". From my reading of RST, I learned that light and physical matter occur due to a deviation from unit velocity in one of our dimensions of space or time. The more dimensions in which there are "vibrations", the more "solid" the resulting substance appears in the physical world. The first such vibration on a dimensional axis causing the photon, or light to appear, subsequent vibrations on additional axes causing gases, liquids, and solids. One can view these vibrations as "distortions" away from unit velocity which are necessary for us to experience them.
Put another way, the underlying aether of the universe is at unity with the creator. When the Creator said "Let there be Light", he caused some of those units of aether to vibrate and thus differentiate themselves from the rest that were at unity. Thus was born the photon, which is then the source for all the more "dense" material we experience. Consider, if you will, that you are in a music room filled with pianos all playing middle C. In very short order, you will not hear the note. You are at unity with it. Now add a distortion, and have one piano play treble C, and that note will be all that you will hear. Not because it is all there is, but because of the vibrational distortion caused by its movement away from unity. Thus distortions are neither good nor bad, they are simply differences that allow us to experience things. This also gives us some insight into the need to "balance" distortions in order to restore ourselves to unity. This gave me a greater appreciation of Ra's propensity to refer to all distortions as dichotomies (love/light, you/them, teach/learn, right/duty, etc.).
For anyone that's interested, and patient through what can be some long winded discussions of physics (and metaphysics), here is a link to the collected works of Dewey B. Larson and his Reciprocal System.
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/dbl/index.htm
Herein, I have started a thread that will deal with the physics, theories, and implications of Mr. Larson's work. I plan to periodically post thoughts and observations related to RST and the part I see it, and possibly us, playing in moving it forward as we continue to expand in 4D awareness. I encourage anyone and everyone to read, discuss, contribute, and participate in this effort.
Sorry for the long post, but I hope that it resonates with some of you.
3D Sunset
Thanks for starting this thread. I'm interested.
(01-23-2009, 12:11 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks for starting this thread. I'm interested.
Thank you, my friend. Let's start a discussion and see if others join in. I'd like to begin by sharing a link to a nicely organized set of the first of the collected works of Dewey B. Larson, the book "Nothing but Motion":
http://library.rstheory.org/books/nbm
After spending many hours pouring through these works, I'll also offer a suggestion (if you want to read it yourself) that you skim through areas where he gets on his soapbox about the problems with current theories (and his associated frustration that his elegant theory was not recognized for the genius work that it is). In short, the great Mr. Larson tends to be a bit of a windbag at times, which can make the material difficult to work through.
I'll start by condensing the first three chapters into my summary thereof and invite discussion thereto. Let me lead you first to my favorite paragraph in these chapters, the nugget of gold, which so resonated with me originally (emphasis added):
Quote:Cosmologists often begin their analyses of large-scale physical processes with a consideration of a hypothetical “empty” universe, one in which no matter exists in the postulated space-time setting. But an empty universe of motion is an impossibility. Without motion there would be no universe. The most primitive condition, the situation which prevails when the universe of motion exists, but nothing at all is happening in that universe, is a condition in which units of motion exist independently, with no interaction. In this condition all speed is unity, one unit of space per unit of time, and since all units of motion are alike—they have no property but speed, and that is unity for all—the entire universe is a featureless uniformity. In order that there may be physical phenomena that can be observed or measured there must be some deviation from this one-to-one relation, and since it is the deviation that is observable, the amount of the deviation is a measure of the magnitude of the phenomenon. Thus all physical activity, all change that occurs in the system of motions that constitutes the universe, extends from unity, not from zero.
Does this not sound like intelligent infinity? And what are deviations, than distortions away from intelligent infinity? Interestingly, this simple observation also actually resolves a paradox which has long been present, and summarily ignored in Einstein's general relativity.
The rest of the first three chapters lay out the basic foundation of RST in two postulates:
Quote: First Fundamental Postulate: The physical universe is composed entirely of one component, motion, existing in three dimensions, in discrete units, and with two reciprocal aspects, space and time.
Second Fundamental Postulate: The physical universe conforms to the relations of ordinary commutative mathematics, its primary magnitudes are absolute, and its geometry is Euclidean.
And a simple equation for motion
Quote: v=s/t
Obviously, the equation of motion, which defines motion in terms of space and time, likewise defines space and time in terms of motion. It tells us that in motion space and time are the two reciprocal aspects of that motion, and nothing else. In a universe of matter, the fact that space and time have this significance in motion would not preclude them from having some other significance in a different connection, but when it is specified that motion is the sole constituent of the physical universe, space and time cannot have any significance anywhere in that universe other than that which they have as aspects of motion. Under these circumstances, the equation of motion is a complete definition of the role of space and time in the physical universe. We thus arrive at the conclusion that space and time are simply the two reciprocal aspects of motion and have no other significance.
From this one equation, he gives us the relationship between space and time (reciprocals) and the basis for understanding of both space/time and time/space (reciprocals).
We will see later how these hypotheses, postulates and equation can give rise to the entire physical and metaphysical universe which was referenced by Don Elkins in his discussions with Ra, which are the basis of a large part of Book II of the Law of One.
Enough for now,
3D Sunset
Dear 3D and others,
For the last several days I have lacked time to participate in these forums, and now I must beg to be excused from this and other discussions for the next several weeks. I will be traveling and offline.
I look forward to rejoining the discussions in general when I return, and this one in particular.
In love and light,
βαθμιαίος
(02-08-2009, 09:11 AM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: [ -> ]Dear 3D and others,
For the last several days I have lacked time to participate in these forums, and now I must beg to be excused from this and other discussions for the next several weeks. I will be traveling and offline.
I look forward to rejoining the discussions in general when I return, and this one in particular.
In love and light,
βαθμιαίος
Godspeed, my friend. I look forward to your return.
3D Sunset
Wonderful! The physics of Larson, since discussed in the Law of One, is something I have really been wanting to learn about, but I haven’t the technical knowledge or the patience to sit through his entire works (yet). I love reading about quantum theory and chaos and systems theories and the holographic universe model, but when it comes to all these theories, I mainly am after what it really means, metaphysically, and not so much the specifics and mathematics of it all. So, I was very happy to read your explanation which made sense of it, and perhaps I can use that as a basis for further reading it myself.
So, first of all, how does or could this relate to those other theories, particularly quantum mechanics and holographic-universe theories? Does it blow them out of the water, or simply put a different spin on them? How about Bell’s Theorum? Action at a distance anyone? I've found that the holographic model makes things like Ra's creating the pyramids from nothing much more believable. How might these be compatible?
Also, what might it mean that the study of vibrations will lead to a deeper and more all-encompassing RST? It sounds like Ra is talking about cymatics, which is a fascinating subject in and of itself. How could cymatics add to RST? Any thoughts? What are the “n” dimensions?
I’m very interested in getting this discussion going, there will be a lot for all of us to learn. I will try to read some of the RST stuff when and if I have time, I’m pretty busy with school.
this is from wikipedia:
In mathematics, an n-dimensional space is a topological space whose dimension is n (where n is a fixed natural number). The archetypical example is n-dimensional Euclidean space, which describes Euclidean geometry in n dimensions.
Many familiar geometric objects can be generalized to any number of dimensions. For example, the two-dimensional triangle and the three-dimensional tetrahedron can be seen as specific instances of the n-dimensional simplex. Also, the circle and the sphere can be seen as specific instances of the n-dimensional hypersphere. More generally, an n-dimensional manifold is a space that locally looks like n-dimensional Euclidean space, but whose global structure may be non-Euclidean.
There are also notions of dimension (such as Hausdorff dimension in topology and Kodaira dimension in algebraic geometry) that apply to even more general spaces.
Sometimes it is convenient in science to describe an object with n degrees of freedom as if it were a point in some n-dimensional space. For example, classical mechanics describes the three-dimensional position and momentum of a point particle as a point in 6-dimensional phase space.
What this sounds to me like it's talking about is the kind of pure space in which we imagine pure euclidean geometrical shapes existing. What if that type of infinite space was the unity point, where there was one space for every one time, hence it's being even and infinite, and therefore euclidean and platonian shapes somehow resonate with this space? I'm totally pulling this out of my butt, but it's interesting to think about.
Another thing I was thinking is, what if instead of saying they don't come from zero, we just re-defined zero? I mean, what is Nothing, anyway? Seems like the only thing you could call Nothing is no-thing, or rather a lack of any thing-ness, or a formless infinite singularity. The equation I've made up to represent this is 0 = ∞ = 1. I just intuitively was drawn to such a concept, I don't know if I'm on the right track in relation to RST at all. Kinda sounds similar, though.
I think Larsonian physics is the next layer I may investigate. I have just ordered 3 Tesla books I will read first. And another on top of that.
The reason I posted was because of this article.
http://www.mindpowernews.com/FiveMysteries.htm
If anyone wants to read it. Five mysteries science can't explain. I can answer the end one efficiently to do with free will and brain chemistry. Which was answered in Michael Talbot's book. Holographic Universe.
I thought of it because until just now I couldn't explain number one.
The quote starting v= s/t started by 3d Sunset, was pretty amazing.
Phoenix Wrote:I thought of it because until just now I couldn't explain number one.
Hello Phoenix. In looking over the list, I think there are a few of the five that RST can help elucidate. My real interest in exploring RST on this forum, is to provide a foundation in RST that we can use to explore Mr. Larson's metaphysical views based upon RST, which he wrote in the book "Beyond Space and Time". FYI, here is a link to an online version of the book, but it does assume a moderate background in RST.
http://library.rstheory.org/books/bst/index.html
It is my hope to find enough interested people to lay the foundation in RST and then discuss this book in light of the LOO.
(02-08-2009, 06:25 PM)MisterRabbit Wrote: [ -> ]Another thing I was thinking is, what if instead of saying they don't come from zero, we just re-defined zero? I mean, what is Nothing, anyway? Seems like the only thing you could call Nothing is no-thing, or rather a lack of any thing-ness, or a formless infinite singularity. The equation I've made up to represent this is 0 = ∞ = 1. I just intuitively was drawn to such a concept, I don't know if I'm on the right track in relation to RST at all. Kinda sounds similar, though.
Welcome MisterRabbit, I appreciate your input. What Lasron in the RST calls "unity" is motion at unit velocity (one unit of space per unit of time). This is a critical numerical value (1) because both space and time exist in the denominator portion in the reciprocal formulas. Thus mathematically, it is important that "no change from the nominal movement" be represented as 1, so as to avoid division by zero if the "status quo" were zero. This may seem like a convenient designation by Mr. Larson, but by doing so, he actually resolves a nagging paradox in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (that being the "Twin Paradox"... more on this in a later post).
This relationship between space/time and time/space also gives us a fascinating insight into the relationship between these areas referred to throughout the LOO. Namely, that the two regions are directly associated almost as opposite sides of a coin. I'll explore this more in a future post as well, but observe that just by examining the equations, one can see that
for two objects to move closer in space, they must actually move farther apart in time, and vice versa.
Sorry that I have not posted more frequently. I'm fairly busy with work right now, but I remain committed to this forum. On a side note, I encourage all of you to explore RST independently, as I am far from an expert on this material, and will likely gloss over some important parts to move things forward. In truth, I consider myself best qualified to act as learn/teacher of this material, but will do my best nonetheless.
Love and Light,
3D Sunset
I liked the first link better. (I.e. because that's the one I'm reading).
David Wilcock explained gravity pretty well in his scientific books. Much like the etheric energy moving into the earth, like 'breathing'.
(02-16-2009, 05:45 PM)Phoenix Wrote: [ -> ]I liked the first link better. (I.e. because that's the one I'm reading).
David Wilcock explained gravity pretty well in his scientific books. Much like the etheric energy moving into the earth, like 'breathing'.
It turns out that the first link only has the title of his last book, but no material. The second link has all the books as the first, but includes a couple more, is a little better organized, and has a forum. The book contents are the same, though.
As with any natural phenomenon, there are as many explanations as there are people. Dewey's gravitation explanation appeals to my Engineering side a little more than DW's. I'm not sure why DW hasn't ever (to my knowledge at least) explored RST. It seems like it would be up his alley, but for whatever reason he hasn't pursued it.
Love and Light,
3D Sunset
Hey, good info, 3D. I'm currently reading Beyond Time and Space, between my readings for school. One nagging question I'm thinking about is the fact that he says the geometry of the universe is euclidean. The simple fact is that we do not see euclidean geometry anywhere in nature with the exception of some crystals and some vibratory patterns in mediums. I suppose that this would hint that perhaps the geometry of the universe really IS euclidean, but why is it that what we mainly see in nature is fractal/chaos patterns, if it is euclidean? Does he say anything about this? I see no octohedron clouds, or triangular mountains, obviously. And yet, I've seen that the patterns that atoms organize into can be related to euclidean forms such as the platonic solids. It just seems that somehow both chaos theory and RST's euclidean stuff are both correct. Does anyone know about this?
(02-21-2009, 06:28 PM)MisterRabbit Wrote: [ -> ]One nagging question I'm thinking about is the fact that he says the geometry of the universe is euclidean. The simple fact is that we do not see euclidean geometry anywhere in nature with the exception of some crystals and some vibratory patterns in mediums. ...It just seems that somehow both chaos theory and RST's euclidean stuff are both correct. Does anyone know about this?
Thank you, Mr. Rabbit for this very interesting question. Let me start by saying that I've never seen a reference in any of the RST materials to the relationship between RST and Chaos theory. Although I am far from an expert in any of these fields, I am more than passingly familiar and conversant in each. So, with the caveat that this represents
my perspective on the subject, and is, I'm sure a far cry from how Mr. Larson would respond to the same question, let me begin:
First, bear in mind that chaos theory and fractals did not really emerge into scientific literature until Mr. Larson was into his 80's, and focusing more on the metaphysical aspects of RST than the physical. Still, I suspect that had he seen these theories as significantly orthogonal to RST, he would had addressed the issue explicitly. So, to some extent, no news is good news.
Next, let's consider where that particular postulate came from. If you've read his earliest articles on the subject, you'll see that Dewey was extremely concerned by the propensity of physicists to take a flawed theory and then create a set of ever more complicated special rules to allow the theory to survive in the light of contradictory evidence. I recommend the book "The case against the nuclear atom" as a great example of his concerns. Here's a link
http://library.rstheory.com/books/cana/
As such, when formulating his own theory, Dewey sought as simple a set of predicates and assumptions as possible. The nature of Einstein's general theory of relativity forced upon the scientific stage the need for hyperbolic non-euclidean geometries in order to explain gravity. Dewey saw this as violating Occam's razor (which states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible). Indeed, one of the joys of RST is that it uses a common set of natural forces and behaviors all the way from the microscopic (i.e., atomic and sub-atomic) level to the macroscopic (i.e., galaxies, super galaxies and the universe), thus avoiding the very division between relativity and quantum mechanics that so many scientists work feverishly today to define within the framework of these disparate theories.
Okay, so back to fractals and chaos. I feel confident that Dewey felt that chaos theory was consistent with RST, and to some extent independent of it (my guess). I say this because if RST dictates the way in which atoms will combine to form molecules (which it does very accurately, indeed much more so than nuclear atomic theory does for molecules more complex than hydrogen), it needn't go further to explain or predict the way in which these molecules will loosely bind to create shapes in our physical world. The reason that you
do see euclidean shapes in crystals and harmonic vibrations is that they are
tightly defined by RST in the nature of their physical manifestations.
So, whereas RST defines those aspects of nature that are constant and unchanging, chaos theory and fractals give us insight into how these immutable building blocks can be grouped together to form the infinite variety of physical shapes that we experience in our daily lives. Think of it as RST defining the number, shape and size of Lego building blocks, but nature is free to assemble them using any blueprint it chooses.
I welcome any and all to add or challenge every part of this explanation, as it was pretty much off the top of my head and contains many potential issues and inconsistencies.
Thank you again Mr. Rabbit for this thought provoking question. It caused me to organize and complete a model for this interaction between the theories that I hadn't fully explored previously.
Love and Light,
3D Sunset
Yeah that makes sense, I had a sort of notion similar to what you're saying as a possibility, but you've articulated it very well. Another thing that has crossed my mind, as I've been reading Beyond Space and Time, is that of how time/space interacts with space/time, as in the forms of life. This is a much welcome and fairly easily understood concept for me, but the idea that it sparks off in my head is the issue of attractors, in chaos theory, which seem not to come from anywhere in particular but arise from seemingly unorganized motions. Could this be related to time/space? Also, there are various systems theories, which are related to chaos theory, which Fritjof Capra wrote about in his book Web of Life (I havn't finished it but it's excellent, highly recommended), which study how systems arise from supposed "chaos" (which is a concept I have trouble with, I've never seen this supposed chaos, I only see patterns interacting with one another), and become self regulating, and I'm thinking that had I finished the book he was going in the direction that this may be how life comes about. Now, this is an interesting theory and falls hand in hand with the whole idea of attractors. I'm just wondering how all of this could apply to RST. I get the vibe, though, that all of these things which have been seperate fields can be tied together through RST, as it makes them reconcilable. Could attractors, if not all then some like maybe "strange attractors", be related to time/space's interaction with space/time motion?
I'm still wrapping my head around all this and reading Beyond Space and Time, but it's very interesting. I tore through 5 chapters tonight. I can't quite imagine yet what he really means by multiple dimensions of time, or movement in time, or how movement closer together in time means movement further apart in space. I mean I know they are reciprocal aspects, but that's just an abstract equation, I want to be able to visualize it. Someone from RST needs to make some videos about this, I've seen videos about quantum stuff that were pretty cool, just a white background and drawing points and lines to illustrate the points.
Hey guys, I've been in email correspondence with someone in ISUS, the organization associated with RST, and I've asked him why they don't make an instructional video making the concepts more easily and widely known about and understood. There is a video you may have seen, which is fairly popular on youtube, that is called "imagining the tenth dimension" which gave me the idea. It is just a simple explanation using lines and simple pictures with a narrator to try and help people imagine how there could be a 10th dimension. Now, I think that this may well be a very good way for more people to become aware of and be attracted to RST. The guy I emailed agrees, but says that ISUS is such a small organization that they don't really have the manpower to do it at the moment, that it has been put on a "to do" list. So, since RST is fairly well thought of in the Law of One circles, simply because it was verified by Ra, I was wondering if anyone here is able or knows anyone who would be able and willing to help these guys out and make a video? In the email, he said...
We purchased the Vegas Pro video/DVD software last year for the purpose of creating some videos to explain the RS... ISUS isn't a large organization and most of the members are retired and virtually computer illiterate, so all the work falls basically on two people. Right now we are in the process of republishing Structure of the Physical Universe and Quasars and Pulsars (new editions), which is a lot of work. Once they are done, the video is next on the list.
If you would like to get involved with making such a video/DVD, please let me know. Once it is scripted out, it is not that hard to produce, but knowing what to script is the challenge... insight from a person just learning the RS can be very helpful.
I told him that I would ask around here to see if anyone would be interested. If you know anyone on this site with super computer skills or even just the ability to work the kind of programs needed, let them know about this. They can email:
isus-secretary@rstheory.org
Oh and his name is Bruce.
Hey guys the guy emailed me back and he told me about two additional sites to go to related to RS theory (the correct term I am told)
He said...
The scientist crowd on RS theory does not take well to the concepts of metaphysics, in general, and in particular the Ra material. If you wish to discuss them in detail, Prof. KVK Nehru and I set up an alternate site,
http://rs2theory.org to discuss the metaphysical aspects of Larson's RS, based on some more recent developments in projective geometry. I also maintain a site,
http://antiquatis.org that is devoted to the "Elder Race", as Ra mentions in Book 1. You are welcome to join in at either site--though we can get pretty "deep" at times!
(02-22-2009, 10:20 PM)MisterRabbit Wrote: [ -> ]Another thing that has crossed my mind, as I've been reading Beyond Space and Time, is that of how time/space interacts with space/time, as in the forms of life... Could attractors, if not all then some like maybe "strange attractors", be related to time/space's interaction with space/time motion?
This is a topic I wanted to work up to after the foundation of RST was laid (btw, RST is only my shorthand, feel free to spell out Theory if you prefer). I agree that the interactions between s/t and t/s are fascinating and worthy of a great deal of discussion. I was hoping to attract some others that are more knowledgeable than I before we went off the deep end, so to speak, but let's talk and see where things go.
First, to review for others, in "Beyond Space and Time", Mr. Larson makes the point that, in general, actions which occur in space/time that are contrary to entropy, are due to interactions between time/space and space/time. This specifically includes all life forms which contain DNA (or precursors to DNA) such that their DNA divides and replicates. He indicates that this division of DNA, the likes of which are not experienced elsewhere in nature (i.e., by non-living things), represent the intervention of some controlling aspect from time/space into space/time. Specifically, he points out that this splitting of the DNA, or their moving apart in space/time, represents their moving closer together in time/space.
He does not specifically address the issue of other natural phenomena that are not organic, although I do believe that the concept of strange attractors in chaos theory, may be another such example of time/space interplay with space/time. There's lots more to say on this, so please continue the discussion.
Quote:I can't quite imagine yet what he really means by multiple dimensions of time, or movement in time, or how movement closer together in time means movement further apart in space. I mean I know they are reciprocal aspects, but that's just an abstract equation, I want to be able to visualize it.
I must admit that I have been largely at a loss for a good way to visualize this relationship as well. Last night, after reading your request, I had an interesting dream about an umbrella. When I awoke, it occurred to me that this is a crude, but workable starting point for such a visual model. In space/time, you could think of the space aspects as the volume covered by an open umbrella. The time aspect in this case is scalar and is represented by the umbrella handle. So, you can define the 3 dimensional position of something anywhere within the volume covered by the umbrella as the space position, and furthermore associate each such point with a location on the handle, or the related time position.
Now, here's the catch. The farther away from the top of the umbrella your space point is, determines how far from the handle your associated time point is (i.e., they are inversely related). Bear in mind then, that at the moment of the Big Bang, time was at unity at the handle, and space was at unity at the point of the umbrella and both time and space were scalar. As time and space marched forward, space spread out like the opening of the umbrella, and time marched forward just like the mechanism that opens the umbrella. The farther time advances, the more spread out space gets. Similarly, if you close the umbrella, you move backward in time and compress space.
So far, so good, but this primarily our space/time world. Now consider, that when you close the umbrella, each 3 dimensional location in space is compressed and returns to unity. Once closed, both time and space are scalar, as in the equations s/t or t/s. Now that they are both scalar, think of opening the umbrella in time/space. This time, the points on the umbrella area represent three dimensional time points and are associated with scalar space points on the handle. I like to think of the umbrella as closing so far that it turns inside out to represent the transition from s/t to t/s. Say that space is red and time is blue. When you're working with space/time you have a red umbrella with a blue handle. In time/space, you have a blue umbrella with a red handle. But recall that they are both the same umbrella, the same time, and the same space.
Like I said, it's not a perfect analogy, but I think it is representative of both the inverse relationships and can give you some feel for how time may be three dimensional as well as space. It's important to note, that in this example there are only 6 dimensions represented, since the scalar time or space values are actually one dimensional representations of their three dimensional forms.
Is this analogy helpful?
Love and Light,
3D Sunset
Having just finished the Ra material, I looked around this website and found this promising forum thread on Larson.
RS theory was going to be one of my future projects.
At the moment I am trying to read
"Secrets of the Aether", but it is a little too mathematical for my taste/abilities. The basic ideas behind the Aether Physics Model are (to me) similar to Larson's.
(02-13-2009, 04:26 PM)Phoenix Wrote: [ -> ]The reason I posted was because of this article.
http://www.mindpowernews.com/FiveMysteries.htm
If anyone wants to read it. Five mysteries science can't explain. I can answer the end one efficiently to do with free will and brain chemistry. Which was answered in Michael Talbot's book. Holographic Universe.
I thought of it because until just now I couldn't explain number one.
Phoenix, the existence of dark matter and dark energy was proposed to solve problems with astronomical observations.
The measured speed of stars in galactic arms did not match the calculations based on gravitational theory.
The chosen solution was to arbitrarily add invisible matter to make the observations fit the theory. Another solution would have been to question the validity of the theory. This second solution will probably prove to be more worthwhile for understanding the universe.
gerards regards
3D, your first example was much easier for me to visualize, not surprisingly, since it represents space/time and not time/space. But this is definately a helpful illustration that I will have to ponder. It's funny, I've always been drawn to the umbrella as a symbol, but I never knew why. Because it protects from rain? no... maybe this is why.
So, it sounds like from this example that in space/time, as space is expanding, time is experienced as linear, as in the movement of the device along the handle. I can dig that. But trying to imagine time spreading out and space being linear is a whole different ballgame. I can sort of acknowledge it hypothetically, especially with the help of this illustration, but I still can't really see how it could be, or what it would be like to experience that. How do you think this might relate to the descriptions of time/space that people have given us? Like NDE's and stuff like that? Could they help us to visualize how it would be?
Also, your umbrella analogy sounds uncannily like the phenomenon of attractors. It sounds like whichever aspect is the stick part of the umbrella is the attractor, just as the center of a large funnel is the attractor of a ball-bearing released to roll down that funnel to it's base. It will roll around and around in various ways depending on how it is released, but it's movement is always organized around that center to which it is rolling. Aslo...woah I might be coming up with something here...if the attractor or center is time, let's say this is time/space, and the area around which it is travelling is space, then the closer it comes together in space...wait no, it still comes together in space and in time in that analogy. I just don't understand how moving closer in space is moving further apart in time.
Oh and please clarify the term scalar in how it relates to all of this. I've looked at definitions of it, ie a quantity posessing only magnitude like 40mph, but 40mph can't exist unless it's going someplace, like west, which makes it a velocity right?. So, is the point of time and space being scalar that they make eachother a velocity, or motion? but without eachother there is no motion, just as without going somewhere there can never be any 40 mph? so motion = time and space just as 40mph + west = travelling? like without direction there is no mph, and without some sort of speed there is not west in a sense, because there must be a travelling in a directional manner in order for there to be direction...am I getting way off track or is this kind of right on?
oops hey I meant to say, in my ball-funnel example, "let's say this is space/time" instead of "let's say this is time/space" because space/time would be where, I think, the time aspect would behave like an attractor.
Hmmm. A lot of material here. I'll try to address as much as I can, but query me further if I gloss over too much.
(03-02-2009, 03:20 PM)MisterRabbit Wrote: [ -> ]... I've always been drawn to the umbrella as a symbol, but I never knew why. Because it protects from rain? no... maybe this is why.
The umbrella is a great metaphor for protection, which is actually a form of concealment and hiding. That's actually another reason I like the analogy, it uses the umbrella to "reveal" a truth, rather than to hide it.
Quote: But trying to imagine time spreading out and space being linear is a whole different ballgame. I can sort of acknowledge it hypothetically, especially with the help of this illustration, but I still can't really see how it could be, or what it would be like to experience that.
A few thoughts here. First, remember to separate "space" from the "matter" that resides there. Okay, so we know that both time/space and space/time exist simultaneously (at the same time) and simulspaciously (my new word, meaning occupying the same space). Furthermore, per RST, matter and anti-matter exist either simultaneously or simulspaciously. Matter can exist both simultaneously and in close proximity to other matter, and anti-matter can exist simulspaciously and in close temporal proximity to other anti-matter, but if some matter and some anti-matter occupy the same space at the same time, they cancel each other out, and return to unity. (Note: this is an aspect of RST's definition of the creation of matter through motion that I haven't really covered yet. As individual units begin to coalesce and form photons, then matter, they inherently create both matter and anti-matter in equal, symmetric but opposite portions. Due to this, whenever we attempt to account for all the matter in the universe, we are inherently missing 50% of it which is the anti-matter. By the way, this goes a long way to accounting for missing matter in the universe. Observe also that both matter and anti-matter create the same magnitude and direction of gravity.)
So, here's the next level of visualization. When viewing things in space/time you are seeing the matter "clumped" together in space to form our physical reality. The anti-matter which exists at this same time, is spread out though the three dimensions of space such that it rarely ever coexists with the matter. Similarly, in time/space, anti-matter is clumped in time to form its physical reality, but here, the "matter" that makes up our visible portion of the universe, (which exists in the same space in s/t), is inherently spread out through the three dimensions of time. The inverse relationships between time and space actually act as a safety mechanism allowing this dualistic universe to coexist without annihilating itself. So you see, it's a good thing that our matter which is close together in our 3-space is widely separated in 3-time.
Bearing all that in mind, I find that it is most easy to visualize movement through 3-time, as being identical to moving through 3-space. In either case (s/t or t/s), the aspect with the greatest number of dimensions is simply providing a stage on which to locate the matter (or anti-matter) needed to manifest that portion of the universe. Is this "right"? No, but I'm confident that it's impossible to "accurately" describe what time/space really looks like.
Quote: How do you think this might relate to the descriptions of time/space that people have given us? Like NDE's and stuff like that? Could they help us to visualize how it would be?
Just as we cannot accurately visualize a four dimensional cube (i.e., hypercube or tesseract), we cannot accurately visualize time/space. I believe that the descriptions we have (such as as you mentioned) are the projection of those t/s experiences into s/t. By the same token, I think that in dreams, we do travel through t/s and have t/s experiences, but upon awakening, what we remember is the s/t projection of those otherworldly experiences. I also think that there is a common ground, of sorts, between the two, which is in the form of symbols or icons that can more completely transcend the translation. (There's room for a lot more discussion here)
Quote:... I just don't understand how moving closer in space is moving further apart in time.
The Buddhist in me says to simply accept that which is. Does one understand
why gravity is? Why men like sports? Why women like shopping? Why no one likes Dick Cheney (yes, we all love him, I know, but we don't have to like him, do we)? Okay, I'll stop before I get too politically incorrect (if I haven't already). You get my point, it's simply a fact inherent in our universe. I just see it as an elegant way to separate the two halves of the universe (s/t and t/s), because if the two did come together, they would destroy each other.
Quote: Oh and please clarify the term scalar in how it relates to all of this. I've looked at definitions of it, ie a quantity possessing only magnitude like 40mph, but 40mph can't exist unless it's going someplace, like west, which makes it a velocity right?.
Okay, movement, like speed (40mph) is scalar. Velocity, the vector, includes a direction, or displacement, parameter. If you drive at 40mph to and from work, your speed was 40mph, but your velocity was zero, since you had no net displacement. Similarly, if you travel down Lombard street in San Francisco (the notoriously crooked street going down the hill) at 25 mph, your velocity would only be about 8 mph because you'd waste a lot of motion moving left and right in the turns.
Quote:So, is the point of time and space being scalar that they make each other a velocity, or motion?
The point is, that in s/t, space is three dimensional (i.e., a vector) and can be associated with a scalar time (i.e., you can divide a vector by a scalar quantity). Similarly, t/s has time as a vector and can be divided by a scalar space. You can also divide a scalar by a scalar. But it turns out that you cannot meaningfully speak of the ratio of two vectors with dissimilar units. So, there really is no meaningful definition of the dual vector representation of s/t. (You may need to refer to Buddha on this one too).
Is this helpful, or have I further muddied the waters?
Love and Light (and candid umbrellas),
3D Sunset
Well, first, so far ass all this is concerned...
Quote:The Buddhist in me says to simply accept that which is. Does one understand why gravity is? Why men like sports? Why women like shopping? Why no one likes Dick Cheney (yes, we all love him, I know, but we don't have to like him, do we)?
...I have to say that if you understand this well enough for it to be a fact for you, then that's great, but I don't, and so will not accept it until I can somehow understand it to be true. That may be impossible as I don't have a strong background in math and physics, but that's just the way it is with me. So, I'm trying to SEE, because knowing without seeing (as in realizing conceptually) is just memorization. Even if I were to accept it simply on the merit of who has advocated it, that wouldn't get me any closer to understanding it. That's my only goal here. Also I don't see a buddhist imploring you to accept axioms because he said so, I think that most would implore you to do the work in order for you to see it yourself, ie enlightenment.
Well, forgive me, but I feel it may take many more examples and illustrations before I can really picture the reversal of space and time, a vector of time and a scalar of space. That's a duzy for my imagination. I really do want to, though. The dream thing helps, I can sort of understand through my own experience with dreams how it is simply a very otherworldy type of experience, not following normal rules of time progression and spacial consistency and accuracy. Still, it is difficult.
Quote:I also think that there is a common ground, of sorts, between the two, which is in the form of symbols or icons that can more completely transcend the translation. (There's room for a lot more discussion here)
Indeed I would say there is, as this may relate to archetypes. Which in some ways remind me of attractors. What do you think of the idea that t/s's tendency towards greater organization interacting with s/t may have something to do with not only the formation of life, but also attractors as well as archetypes?
Quote:Okay, movement, like speed (40mph) is scalar. Velocity, the vector, includes a direction, or displacement, parameter. If you drive at 40mph to and from work, your speed was 40mph, but your velocity was zero, since you had no net displacement. Similarly, if you travel down Lombard street in San Francisco (the notoriously crooked street going down the hill) at 25 mph, your velocity would only be about 8 mph because you'd waste a lot of motion moving left and right in the turns.
Sorry, but I don't completely understand what you mean by this, which probably has more to do with the fact that I'm weak in physics than with your explanation. Are you saying that your velocity, in the first example, would be zero because you wound up where you started from? IF so, I don't really understand why zig-zagging down a street would make a whole lot of difference in that respect, especially since either way you are moving across a planet that is spinning, orbiting a sun that itself is orbiting a center of the galaxy, which is part of a universe that is expanding out in all directions...but I guess all that isn't taken in consideration and you're just trying to give an example I can understand (but in vain, haha).
Well, sorry I'm a bit slow with this kind of thing, and thanks for having patience. I do want to learn.
(03-04-2009, 05:23 PM)MisterRabbit Wrote: [ -> ]Well, forgive me, but I feel it may take many more examples and illustrations before I can really picture the reversal of space and time, a vector of time and a scalar of space. That's a duzy for my imagination. I really do want to, though.
Let's start by seeing what it means to "compress" space from 3 dimensions into one. Try this experiment, either in your mind, or in reality. Take a pencil and place its eraser on a sheet of paper at an angle to a fixed light source (the sun outside is great, since its light rays are parallel, but a good lamp inside will work fine too). Observe how the shadow cast by the pencil forms a 2-dimensional projection of the 3-D pencil (which is a 3D vector). Now consider the point of the pencil. The tip of the shadow represents the 2D projection on the paper of this 3-Space point. Consider that you could come up with an infinite number of different sized pencils that will cast the same shadow on the paper, but to do so you must point the tip of the larger pencils more toward the light, or shorter pencils more toward the paper, thus moving the point in 3 space.
If you now draw a line from the point of the shadow on the paper to the eraser, you have created a 2D vector on the paper. Now, lets arbitrarily draw a new line starting from the point where the eraser was, that is parallel with the right side of your sheet of paper. This new line will represent our single dimension (i.e., scalar) to hold the "compressed" point. You can now project the tip of the 2D vector (our 3D point projected onto 2D) onto that line by drawing a line from the tip of the vector, perpendicular to the new line that we just drew. The point at which the perpendicular line intersects the new line, is the 1D projection of the 2D point. Note that there are again an infinite number of 2D vectors that would project to the same point on this 1D (scalar) line. You have now "compressed" your 3 space point (or actually an infinite possible number of them) onto a single point on a scalar line.
This is precisely what is happening with matter in 3-Time. The points of matter that make up "you" (which are, by necessity close together in 3 space), are actually spread out in 3-Time, but come together when 3-Time is projected into the scalar of time that we call successive "now"s in s/t. Similarly, this is what happens with anti-matter in 3-Space, when it is projected as successive "here"s on scalar space in t/s.
Does this experiment help you visualize changing from 3-space to a scalar?
Quote:What do you think of the idea that t/s's tendency towards greater organization interacting with s/t may have something to do with not only the formation of life, but also attractors as well as archetypes?
This is an interesting abstraction, and one that I need to ponder more fully. Please allow me to table this idea for now.
Quote:Are you saying that your velocity, in the first example, would be zero because you wound up where you started from?
Yes. It's interesting to note that velocity has to be considered within a context of time and space. If your time context is your morning commute until lunch time with your space context being the confines of your city, then you had both speed and velocity. If the context is the same space over the period of waking until bedtime, your velocity was zero (because you had no net relative displacement). If your time context is waking until bedtime, but with the galaxy as your spacial context, then you had a significant velocity. As Einstein said, it's all relative.
Quote:IF so, I don't really understand why zig-zagging down a street would make a whole lot of difference in that respect
It doesn't make a whole lot, but 8mph velocity is certainly different than 25 mph speed. That was my only point.
Quote:Well, sorry I'm a bit slow with this kind of thing, and thanks for having patience. I do want to learn.
As do I. This process is really a great example of why Ra refers to it as teach/learning. Although I am attempting to teach (and the issues you are having are as much, if not more, a shortfall of my feeble attempts at teaching than your difficulty in learning), in doing so, I am learning the material better myself. So, I applaud your spirit and tenacity, and am perfectly happy to continue the discussion until things are resolved.
Love and Light (and pencil vectors),
3D Sunset
Hey, yeah that pencil thing does help, although I'll have to think about it some more as to how it could apply to s/t and t/s.
So...what I think you're saying is that in t/s there is some sort of a 3time all-that-I-am-and-will-be, in a sense. But of course that can't be quite right, because the primal distortion is free will. So how am I to understand time, here? I mean...we normally think of time as the canvas on which history unfolds, which implies that future times are either set or branch off into infinite universes (I doubt it), but if time is being spoken of like some sort of active principle, and if we are to have free will and time is not "already" somewhere else, ie not set in stone, then how are we to begin understanding this? What does it really mean to say that in t/s my pieces are 3d in time, and then projected linearly onto s/t, when it's uncertain what those pieces will be doing even in the near future because of my freewill here and now? Something tells me this calls for a different notion of time altogether, not as some linear layout of events, but something totally new.
So, what is this time, anyway? I've always personally been of the opinion that time is simply a construct we create from our continual existence and ability to remember and imagine, and that the only thing that is real is the eternal now, this, right here. The past is memory, the future daydream. But assuming for a moment that this isn't necessarily true and that time is something that can be examined by physics, well just what is the RS notion of time? What kind of time CAN be 3D, anyway? Obviously not a linear one.
(03-05-2009, 01:55 PM)3D Sunset Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2009, 05:23 PM)MisterRabbit Wrote: [ -> ]Well, forgive me, but I feel it may take many more examples and illustrations before I can really picture the reversal of space and time, a vector of time and a scalar of space. That's a duzy for my imagination. I really do want to, though.
Let's start by seeing what it means to "compress" space from 3 dimensions into one. Try this experiment, either in your mind, or in reality. Take a pencil and place its eraser on a sheet of paper at an angle to a fixed light source (the sun outside is great, since its light rays are parallel, but a good lamp inside will work fine too). Observe how the shadow cast by the pencil forms a 2-dimensional projection of the 3-D pencil (which is a 3D vector). Now consider the point of the pencil. The tip of the shadow represents the 2D projection on the paper of this 3-Space point. Consider that you could come up with an infinite number of different sized pencils that will cast the same shadow on the paper, but to do so you must point the tip of the larger pencils more toward the light, or shorter pencils more toward the paper, thus moving the point in 3 space.
If you now draw a line from the point of the shadow on the paper to the eraser, you have created a 2D vector on the paper. Now, lets arbitrarily draw a new line starting from the point where the eraser was, that is parallel with the right side of your sheet of paper. This new line will represent our single dimension (i.e., scalar) to hold the "compressed" point. You can now project the tip of the 2D vector (our 3D point projected onto 2D) onto that line by drawing a line from the tip of the vector, perpendicular to the new line that we just drew. The point at which the perpendicular line intersects the new line, is the 1D projection of the 2D point. Note that there are again an infinite number of 2D vectors that would project to the same point on this 1D (scalar) line. You have now "compressed" your 3 space point (or actually an infinite possible number of them) onto a single point on a scalar line.
This is precisely what is happening with matter in 3-Time. The points of matter that make up "you" (which are, by necessity close together in 3 space), are actually spread out in 3-Time, but come together when 3-Time is projected into the scalar of time that we call successive "now"s in s/t. Similarly, this is what happens with anti-matter in 3-Space, when it is projected as successive "here"s on scalar space in t/s.
Does this experiment help you visualize changing from 3-space to a scalar?
Quote:What do you think of the idea that t/s's tendency towards greater organization interacting with s/t may have something to do with not only the formation of life, but also attractors as well as archetypes?
This is an interesting abstraction, and one that I need to ponder more fully. Please allow me to table this idea for now.
Quote:Are you saying that your velocity, in the first example, would be zero because you wound up where you started from?
Yes. It's interesting to note that velocity has to be considered within a context of time and space. If your context is your morning commute until lunch time within the confines of your city, then you had both speed and velocity. If the context is the same space over the period of waking until bedtime, your velocity was zero (because you had not net relative displacement). If your context is waking until bedtime, but with the galaxy as your spacial context, then you had a significant velocity. As Einstein said, it's all relative.
Quote:IF so, I don't really understand why zig-zagging down a street would make a whole lot of difference in that respect
It doesn't make a whole lot, but 8mph velocity is certainly different than 25 mph speed. That was my only point.
Quote:Well, sorry I'm a bit slow with this kind of thing, and thanks for having patience. I do want to learn.
As do I. This process is really a great example of why Ra refers to it as teach/learning. Although I am attempting to teach (and the issues you are having are as much, if not more, a shortfall of my feeble attempts at teaching than your difficulty in learning), in doing so, I am learning the material better myself. So, I applaud your spirit and tenacity, and am perfectly happy to continue the discussion until things are resolved.
Love and Light (and pencil vectors),
3D Sunset
whoops didn't mean to have all that quotage in there
(03-05-2009, 03:36 PM)MisterRabbit Wrote: [ -> ]Hey, yeah that pencil thing does help, although I'll have to think about it some more as to how it could apply to s/t and t/s.
So...what I think you're saying is that in t/s there is some sort of a 3time all-that-I-am-and-will-be, in a sense. But of course that can't be quite right, because the primal distortion is free will. So how am I to understand time, here? I mean...we normally think of time as the canvas on which history unfolds, which implies that future times are either set or branch off into infinite universes (I doubt it), but if time is being spoken of like some sort of active principle, and if we are to have free will and time is not "already" somewhere else, ie not set in stone, then how are we to begin understanding this?
Good thinking MisterRabbit. It made me wonder about this:
Free will is possible in our s/t because we cannot experience/influence more of time than the "now" of our linear time. So maybe in t/s free will is guaranteed because space is linear and can not be influenced other than in the "here". So even when you have every freedom to move in time, the linearity of space prevents you from actually doing something. (Can anybody follow this?)
Long ago I read Ouspensky, he also thought of the 3 dimensions of time. Our linear time was expanded perpendicularly in one direction to "all possibilities" and in the other perpendicular direction into "eternity". This is what I remember of it, I'd have to look up what he said exactly...
But I am beginning to like this reciprocal thinking.
Thank you all for the teach/learning experience.
gerards regards
I think it bears considering that when Ra spoke of what we would call our future, that he spoke in terms of probability and possibility (i.e. anything possible, not necessarily probable). Also, consider that time and space (i.e. our experience) is considered an illusion. For anything to be possible, it means that our choices affect what we experience in our future. For the probability of something to be estimable, it would seem that Ra would use past choices as prologue for calculation. So it would seem that Ra's ability to predict our future is similar to our trying to predict the weather. The further out (i.e. more orders of magnitude of possibilities due to the number of entities making choices) you get, the more ambiguous the result.
I also find it interesting that 'densities' are also referred to as 'vibrations', which seem to correspond to space and time, and the difference between light as a mass or a wave. Are we (humans) the focal vectors through which light (wave -- time) manifest (space) after being filtered by belief / choice (individual and collective)?
It seems like in trying to understand t/s and s/t, we are really trying to understand the nature of the illusion / veil, to see the man behind the curtain as it were.
(03-06-2009, 03:45 PM)ubergud Wrote: [ -> ]It seems like in trying to understand t/s and s/t, we are really trying to understand the nature of the illusion / veil, to see the man behind the curtain as it were.
Indeed, ubergud, that is exactly my objective in this quest. Given the understanding, though, that the man may be completely inconceivable in our density and indescribable in our language, I would state that I am trying to, in some way approximate, however grossly, what existence is beyond our illusion and map it into our own. I do believe that doing so will reveal some or many hidden truths in 3D and in the LOO.
Many thanks for your post,
3D Sunset
Indeed 3D, I thank you also for the very beneficial and beautiful conversation and thought we have had thus far on this subject
And thank you also ubergud for the interesting input
I think for the most part that all of this is like a gradual molding of our "left brained" reasoning abilities in theortecial physics into a mode where they might be able to appreciate more "right brained" awareness of the whole, as well as aspects of our consciousness which simpyl defy even the rightbraing-leftbrain dichotomy, such as the type of time we experience during dreams. It is above all a mystery, and we need never forget that. Though our efforts to understand are noble and fruitful, there is ever the mystery.
More commentary from me later
so you're saying in time space we can move about in time (which I Still don't really understand what that could mean) like we move about in space here, but space there would be...linear and so...well I just don't really understand that either haha. I mean, in this world, s/t, we still can only do anything right here, wherever we are. And plus even if it is in t/s, it seems like moving about in time would still negate free will somehow.
I just can't shake the feeling that we have to change our concept of time altogether, and perhaps space too, I don't know.
Trying to think of what space might be like in t/s, I'm reminded of people who had NDE's or just OBE's and talk about there being various afterlife's for those who believe in those afterlifes, and how there doesn't seem to be any sort of limit on space there, it's just sort of...I dunno, goes on forever or something, and doesn't particularly follow normal rules of location or direction. Various places just seem to be, without particularly defined vacinity. Also, travel seems to be instantaneous, and time as we know it seems not to apply, ie the length of a life review may be described as being both quick and taking a long time, or neither but just indescribable. Perhaps in examining the descriptions we have come by, we might be able to generate some ideas of how the whole RS perspective of space and time applies to these , or maybe how they illustrate the RS theory of t/s.
Well, this discussion has given my imagination a new direction. I figured out how our six-dimensional life works.
Of course it is utterly presumptuous for my little brains to think this is really the way it works, but I like the idea so far.
These are the thoughts I have been developing lately:
My space/time existence allows me free movement in space within one thread of time. This thread in time is one-dimensional to me, but is changing with every decision I make. (Write a letter, push a button, sneeze)
My time/space counterpart, my higher self, is free to move in time between every possible past and future. To my higher self, space appears one-dimensional. He cannot influence it directly, but only offer possibilities, directions.
To be of the most efficient service to the purpose of life, we should work together.
The focus, where space/time and time/space touch each other, is in the Here and Now.
When space/time-me makes the right decisions, based upon the opportunities offered by time/space-me, we can together direct our six dimensional thread in the best direction we together know. And my higher self probably knows best.
Living in the moment of Now, focused, choosing the right possibilities is all there is to it at tis space/time side of life. And isn't that very hard to accomplish?
I do like the idea that I am not alone in this. That my higher self offers me opportunities and tries to give me clues.
When I succeed in focusing in the Now and in my heart, I feel connected.
Or is that my imagination?
Am I make any sense here?
Love and Light
Those are some good ideas and I think probably have a lot of truth to them about the higher self, but does higher-self = t/s part of self? I'm not entirely sure. I sort of thought that the t/s part of us was sort of like our soul and was definately different and more in touch with the higher self, but not the higher self per se. For instance in an NDE, a person walks about and experiences themself as relatively the same or at least not a higher self, then if they go to the light and go to realms where their vibrations can run higher, they seem to be more in touch with the higher self part of them. So, it seems to me like the t/s part of us is not necessarily any more in touch with the higher self than the s/t part, even though both, of course, really ARE the higher self all along, in disguise. See what I'm saying? So I think what you're saying probably is true about the higher self, but that higher self does not necessarily equal t/s self. s/t and t/s selves are just two halves of one self that are both laboring under different types of the same illusion and thereby both are working towards becoming the higher self, or more acurately nothing but it, since they already are it.
You smell what I'm steppin in?
hmm I sort of contradicted myself there...it does seem that the t/s has easier access to the higher self, but not that it IS the higher self, but rather both it and the s/t parts of the self are working towards eradicating the illusion and thereby becoming nothing but the higher self.