(08-30-2010, 12:03 PM)3D Sunset Wrote: Hi Q,
My short answer to your question is that I would normally have interpreted the nadir of a sine wave to be the lowest point.....Upon further re-reading the quote, I now feel that he was referring to the traditional nadir (which is opposite the zenith, and hence represents the lowest point), and was distinguishing it from the "critical points" when the values change from + to - and - to +. This would also change my interpretation as indicating that, if both inner and outer work are indicated by different phases of the cycle (a fact which I am still not ready to concede), then likely, outer work is indicated by the negative phase of the cycle.
In reading it earlier, I thought that Ra was referring to the "critical points" when he later used the term nadir. This was strange to me, based upon the definition of nadir, but I went with it, and thus was forced to create the oxymoronic term "negative zenith", to represent the lowest point. On reading it again now, it makes much more sense that he's simply moving on to discuss how things work at the nadir (lowest energy), as distinct from the zenith and critical points. Hope that makes sense,
3D Sunset
Hola back at ya 3D,
It makes abundant sense. We have provided a wonderful service as a result to Peregrinus and Questioner with respect to their 18 day web-chart which hopefully seems imminent. The chart would make little sense were we not first able to establish base-lines to determine what a Zenith is versus more importantly a Nadir, much less it distinguished from difficult transitional days of 9-10 and 18-1. I find it comedic that I am still as capable of seeing it your original way as as much as both ways. Like an optical illusion, meanings are capable of being flipped in a microsecond. Thank you for your response and assistance. I confess that I do get a giggle out of the ease with which misinterpretation is seemingly in as much abundance when dealing with language and words, as even with ourselves and one another. Even a gesture may be misinterpreted as much as a word. The euphemism of "a nod is as good as a wink to a blind man" comes to mind. Is it any wonder then that we are in fact in the thick of it in 3D to the extent we are when even well meaning individuals, or even Ra, can be so misunderstood? There is a richness in the exercise of this if seen with a comparative eye as an analogue to life itself. We are so very very separated from one another, but not meant as a statement of sadness as much as a statement of wonder by its very design, this for the sole purposes of catalyzing us in one direction or the other.
Q