Theos-Talk Archives (January 2001 Message tt00019)

Dear Anandayoga,

Thankyou for your greetings. Part of the reason that you may not understand
some of the stuff one writes is because often it is unintentionally
incorrect. One tries, but one is learning that the most abstract ideas have
a very etheric basic and are very difficult to get straight. One might
suspect that it is the intimacy of the relationships that triggers
resistence from within the personality. How can one think about the Father
aspect, the Mother aspect and the Sibling( :-) ) aspect without it
triggering one,s own personality issues? Oh! Let's live and learn!


I made a mistake in my most recent posting and this caused things to really
seem complicated wherein on discovering the mistake all is then can be seen
as simple and really all tooooo obvious.


Let's look at the first three sets, numbers-wise:




1. The Empty Set



2. The Set Containing Only the Empty
Set.


3. The Set Containing the First Two Sets



meaning



1. Zero

2. One

3. Two







or





1. ( )

2. ( ( ) )

3. ( ( ), ( ( ) ) )




One might dare say these correspond to the first three planes(states of
consciousness) in any given set of seven states of consciousness, say . . .
manasic, The State of Scientific Wisdom, the fifth plane from the top.

Let's suppose/pretend that they do. Then:


1. Empty Consciousness

2. Consciousness containing only the representation of Empty Consciousness

3. Consciousness containing the representations of these first two states of
consciousness




Then from that perspective, which really must be ,as it is impossible to be
conscious outside of consciousness, it seems, then this follows:


1.

2. ( )

3. ( ),



The mistake made in the last e-mail was to put parentheses on the last
two(the empty parentheses and the blank area).


1.

2. ( )

3. ( ( ), ) <----------< the error(need to subtract
those outer parentheses)


That would not be consistent and this error led to the complicated
conclusions concerning the effects of meditating on the first two states.
Let's go back to the corrected version.


1.

2. ( )

3. ( ),




#3 consists of consciousness of two states: ( ) and
.




If one focuses on ( ) one might become resonate with the second
state of consciousness.



If one focuses on one might become resonate with the first
and primal state of consciousness.




Please notice that state #3 is the only state in which one might contrast
the two states and achieve the beginning of definition, one with the other.
This is like the first manifestation of the mind. This is like the
beginning/ending POINT of a cycle of thought, the most primitive point, in
fact.

Sorry for the confusion I might have caused, but it can be a good lesson in
always seeking understanding. The good stuff will make sense in the end and
the incorrect stuff will be seen through. Very high dudes/dudettes do make
mistakes. I know they would deeply appreciate it if we stay wary and
carefull, not overly so, and not get fooled by their typos and lost
sentences and honest mistakes. Yes! to Science. Yes! to intuition! Yes!
to beginning to think for ourselves for the sakes of beloved others.


These thoughts seem significant, as George Spencer-Brown has claimed that
one can derive all of Boolean Algebra, etc, from ( ) and
. If so, let's understand both.




With ( ( ) ),

Gene





----- Original Message -----
From: <AnandaYoga@aol.com>
To: <theos-talk@egroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 6:55 PM
Subject: Theos-World Thank you from a new comer.


> To all of you at theos-talk and the writers/publishers of theos-world,
thank
> you. I am a new student and you are all wonderful to learn from. Much of
> what you say I do not understand yet, but what a wonderful puzzle to
solve.
> I hope one day I will be able to discuss intelligently with you the
> topics that you bring up. For now, I am content being the sponge and
soaking
> it all in.
> Again thank you, it is so nice to know that you are out there and that
> you truely care.
> anandayoga.
>
>
>
>