Thank you Laura, Ark and crew! And also thanks to all the responders!
Wow, what a session! With the session and input from so many others it has got me thinking in all kinds of directions trying to put pieces together.
Laura said:
Session Date: May 28th 2013
Q: (L) What caused the wildfires in the west of the UK and Ireland this past April? (Perceval) It was when the ground was still quite cold, and winter was still holding on, and there were hundreds of wildfires in the gorse and low scrub all long the west coast of Scotland.
A: You noted that it came after the Russian event?
Q: (Perceval) We figured it could be connected.
A: Connect the dots!
From the C's suggestion to connect the dots it sounds like it may be OK to try to connect dots. I have been trying to do this in various directions for many years. But then the following quote had me a little confused:
Laura said:
Session Date: May 28th 2013
Q: (L) Which reminds me... There's another question here. What is the nature and function of the
human capacity for belief?
A: Automatic pattern recognition software run amok.
From the answer above it sounds like even though we should try to connect the dots by carefully "observing reality left and right" we should maybe be wary of "Automatic pattern recognition". I think it is the "Automatic" part that may cause the software to run amok. Anyway, running amok doesn't sound positive to me.
While trying to connect the dots I will also try to be as objective and non-automatic in my pattern recognition as possible. Nevertheless, if you spot any inconsistency or error feel free to let me know so I can get a more objective and "real" or "truthful" view.
There has been much in the session and replies that has sparked connections for me. Maybe my background as a computer programmer/applications developer has a lot to do with how I view information. My last position was working in a data warehouse environment producing reports based on large volumes of data and date ranges. "Software running amok" was not looked upon very favorably.
Continuing with more from the session:
Laura said:
Session Date: May 28th 2013
Q: (L) So I'm assuming you mean that matter would be one concentration, and consciousness would be
another, and information like maybe pure information would be the purest form?
A: Not necessarily, information arranged by a truth becomes consciousness. That is why truth and
objectivity are so important. Without it, consciousness and individuality fractures and disintegrates.
Q: (L) We talked before a little bit about information being involved in where earth changes would be
manifesting and that locations could be attractors as well as some people can be attractors for cosmic
events or electrical things, like they have this negative thing and it fries them in the process. mkrnhr
said something the other day about the destruction of information. We were talking in a broad context,
but we were talking about destruction of libraries, archaeology, and that war itself was essentially
destroying information. It was an anti-information, or the ultimate disinformation so to speak. So I
guess my question is how is this going to affect where, when, and how any of these sheets of electrical
rain or electrical discharges or whatever manifest? Is this going to be like... I don't even know how to
ask the question. (Belibaste) I have a question that might go in the right direction. During the last
session, it was established that if a human population believes in information that is orthogonal to
truth, that is, lies, then it can modulate cosmic events. To understand better the mechanism, I wanted
to know where information is stored?
A: Consciousness.
From the answer above I was really starting to re-think the concept of "information" storage. Storing data or "information" in "Consciousness" is not a data-warehouse concept in the usual sense. From this point I had to switch from the strictly mechanical/scientific view to one that includes more esoteric/spiritual concepts of what "information" means.
Actually in the session the question about where information is stored was preceeded by these questions and answers about the relationship between consciousness, information and matter:
Laura said:
Session Date: May 28th 2013
Q: (L) Next question on the list: How do consciousness, information, and matter relate to each other?
A: Different concentrations of truth.
Q: (L) So I'm assuming you mean that matter would be one concentration, and consciousness would be
another, and information like maybe pure information would be the purest form?
A: Not necessarily, information arranged by a truth becomes consciousness. That is why truth and
objectivity are so important. Without it, consciousness and individuality fractures and disintegrates.
Mr. Scott’s reply really inspired me to investigate further into the concept of “information”
Mr. Scott said:
Approaching Infinity said:
The way I think of it, information is the shaping principle that decides "this way, not those ways." In other words, it chooses and arranges based on the possibilities present. So all the laws of physics, physical processes, and physical particles and shapes that we observe are 'informational statements' or their results. Change the information, and you get different laws (and different universes, if we go the multiverse direction). Electricity is an expression of information because it is a highly specified phenomenon (change the information, change the laws, and you would get different electricity, or no electricity). And then, on top of that, different arrangements and combinations of electricity (e.g., in a person's physiology) are another form of information, specific to the person. It can be more or less ordered (FRV?).
The first part quoted above reminds me of the Stoic philosophy of the logos, the informing principle of the universe. Truth arranges information, producing consciousness. Lots to think about there... Thanks for the session!
Approaching Infinity’s observation’s quoted by Mr. Scott above at first did not compute with me. Approaching Infinity says: “The way I think of it, information is the shaping principle that decides "this way, not those ways." In other words, it chooses and arranges based on the possibilities present.”
As a former computer programmer information has always meant data to me which is contained in those bits and bytes and stored on various media. As I read further and thought about it really hard (thinking with a hammer?) I realized he was using “information” in the sense of “the Stoic philosophy of the logos which focuses on the “informing” part of information. Part of Wikipedia’s definition of logos is:
“Ancient philosophers used the term in different ways. The sophists used the term to mean discourse, and Aristotle applied the term to refer to "reasoned discourse"[4] or "the argument" in the field of rhetoric.[5] The Stoic philosophers identified the term with the divine animating principle pervading the Universe.”
Having been brought up in a Christian environment I used to think another Wikipedia definition of Logos: “The Christian concept of the Logos is derived from the first chapter of the Gospel of John, where the Logos (often translated as “Word”) is described in terms that resemble, but likely surpass, the ideas of Philo:[29]
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.”
As you can see there are different definitions even for the word Logos. Trying to use an analogy that uses computer terms or definitions does not translate very well for the Stoic definition of “information”. However; this does not mean that the computer analogy is not useful for understanding “consciousness”.
Mr. Scott said:
"Information is stored in consciousness." Okay, but what is consciousness? We can imagine that information is like a bunch of bits on a computer, and consciousness is like a hard drive or a DVD-ROM, but in doing so we've just limited possibilities for further understanding and discovery. Analogies are useful to understand things, but always in reference to something we already understand, which:
a) May itself not be correct
b) May be impairing our ability to think outside the box because in trying to understand, we're stuffing something new into an older, more familiar box
Well, that's kind of how our minds work, but I think that's part of the problem.
I actually agree with the above quote except for “but in doing so we've just limited possibilities for further understanding and discovery.”. After thinking about the difference between the definition of “information” according to Stoic philosophy and computer sciences I can see why Mr. Scott feels “limited”.
If we could look again at the computer analogy we could benefit by adding another term to the model which would be “Program”. Program in my way of thinking would correspond to the Stoic “Logos”. The program “is the shaping principle that decides "this way, not those ways." In other words, the logic of the program "chooses and arranges based on the possibilities present.
The “information” or “data” is what the program “chooses or “arranges” to provide the result or output. In today's information systems the program
logic "chooses" or "arranges information". The "information" is used as a noun not a verb. The more "Truth" there is in the "information" the higher concentration of truth you find in the program output.
Laura said:
Session Date: May 28th 2013
Q: (L) Next question on the list: How do consciousness, information, and matter relate to each other?
A: Different concentrations of truth.
Q: (L) So I'm assuming you mean that matter would be one concentration, and consciousness would be another, and information like maybe pure information would be the purest form?
A: Not necessarily, information arranged by a truth becomes consciousness. That is why truth and objectivity are so important. Without it, consciousness and individuality fractures and disintegrates.
In relating the session quote above to the computer model there are some interesting comparisons that I find. For instance “pure information”. How many times I have hoped to have “pure information” to work with. There is an acronym GIGO which most in the IT field recognize as “garbage in garbage out”. But the question Laura asks “and information like maybe pure information would be the purest form?” gets the answer:
“A: Not necessarily, information arranged by a truth becomes consciousness. That is why truth and objectivity are so important. Without it, consciousness and individuality fractures and disintegrates.”
Just as computer programmers must deal with impure information the C’s indicate “Not necessarily” do you need “pure information” to get “Different concentrations of truth”. In writing a program many times you must arrange the data by first sorting it. For instance you may wish to sort it by State, County, Date of Birth and Last Name. In addition to sorting you may wish to separate the information into two different files such as Male and Female. The possibilities vary depending on the segment categories or fields for each record.
You may learn that records in your data or information having a Begin Date prior to 2001 are to be excluded from the output due to inaccuracies when they were stored. This could be considered as filtering for “impure information”. Your final result would be a certain “concentration of truth” which you would then become aware of in the form of a report.
Where is the report stored? It is stored on various kinds of media such as hard drives, tapes, CDs, DVDs or flash drives. Until you access the report for viewing it will stay out of sight on your storage device much as information lies hidden in our subconscious. The information becomes “consciousness” to us only upon retrieval.
Laura said:
Session Date: May 28th 2013
(L)….To understand better the mechanism, I wanted
to know where information is stored?
A: Consciousness.
Where is “Consciousness” stored? How about at least partially in our grey “matter”?
Just as hard drives sometimes have faulty sectors on them and even sometimes crash we can also develop Alzheimer's disease and dementia. This may affect our “concentration of truth”.
So far this is probably very mechanical and boring zzzz….
. Rather than continuing to ramble on I will wrap up with a short list of ideas than came to me as I was reading this session and the previous session:
1. Storing oil (pure information) in our lamps (hard drives ect.) is like storing "true" knowledge or "data arranged by truth" as the C’s mention above.
2. I believe the oil may be stored in our subconscious. Gurdjieff speaks of the subconscious:
November 24, 1994
Frank and Laura
Q: (L) It's fun for who to see how much we can access?
A: All. Challenges are fun. Where do you think the limit of your mind is?
Q: (L) Where?
A: We asked you.
Q: (L) Well, I guess there is no limit.
A: If there is no limit, then what is the difference between your own mind and everything else?
Q: (L) Well, I guess there is no difference if all is ultimately one.
A: Right. And when two things each have absolutely no limits, they are precisely the same thing.
4. Gurdjieff says the subconscious contains our real "Conscience".
G.I.Gurdjieff Beelzebub'sTales to His Grandson Chapter 48 pgs 24-25]
I shall expound my thoughts intentionally in such a sequence and with such
logical confrontation that the essence of certain real ideas may pass
automatically from this "waking consciousness said:
Q: (V) I had an experience with Preying Mantis beings. Who are they?
A: Minturians.
Q: (L) Where are they from?
A: Orion.
Q: (L) Are the Orions the bad guys?
A: Subjective.
Q: (L) Well, what group do they belong to?
A: Federation as do the Plieadians.
Q: (L) Did they abduct me or what is the source of this memory?
A: It is a memory of a past life held in the deep subconscious level.
8. Deprogramming the mechanical machine requires "Work" to access "data arranged by Truth" from our subconscious and store ongoing observations of "data arranged by truth" in our subconscious (i.e. our lamp). Part of the deprogramming requires that we also clean the machine of data not arranged by truth (not so easy) and discover our "mission destiny profile" (I'm still working on all of this too). Mouravieff observes most if not all of what we read, study and absorb from objective observation is stored in our subconscious and we have to do the “Work” in order to access it.
I think the C's have made a distinction between knowledge and consciousness. But while we're at it, why not bring up Being as well? Information, consciousness, knowledge, being, and so on. If we can think of all the related things and connect what the C's have said about them, maybe we can make a "map" with the interconnections? How about drawing it, with the words and the relationships as arrows connecting them? Visualizing may reveal a pattern.
What if the program is consciousness? A program doesn't need data stacks. Some programs are procedural. They are able to create what they need, even assemble themselves or modify code during execution. Pure code can contain plenty of information, although it is not in a straightforward way. To draw a circle a program doesn't need a stack of data, if it has the equation. Could you then say the program still contains the information, even if not in a lookup table or library?
It seems to me the use of a library or lookup table by a program could be compared to programs in humans - our programs are actually lists of actions that are kept handy by the adaptive unconscious. But we don't need many of these lists if we formulate everything we do using reasoning. Executing a list of actions and executing an algorithm are not entirely different. I would say that the algorithm/equation approach contains more truth AND higher density thereof.
I am struggling with the distinction between algorithms and programs. If we use reasoning based on relationships, IE algorithms, we can produce a unique solution to each unique situation. This is related to the ideal of the Work. Without this reasoning, you can only do the same thing over again, and the results tend to be zero.
I think self-modifying code may be a reasonable analogy; after all the C's have said that some of our computers have developed slight consciousness.
As far as UFOs fighting in the skies, the C's have also said that storms can be battles in other densities/dimensions, so maybe they are referring to the storms when they said there would be battles in the sky.
goyacobol said:
tohuwabohu, monotonic and nickelbleu
I am trying to address several posts at one time to maybe lessen the repetition and clutter.
tohuwabohu said:
monotonic said:
I think the C's have made a distinction between knowledge and consciousness. But while we're at it, why not bring up Being as well? Information, consciousness, knowledge, being, and so on. If we can think of all the related things and connect what the C's have said about them, maybe we can make a "map" with the interconnections? How about drawing it, with the words and the relationships as arrows connecting them? Visualizing may reveal a pattern.
What if the program is consciousness? A program doesn't need data stacks. Some programs are procedural. They are able to create what they need, even assemble themselves or modify code during execution. Pure code can contain plenty of information, although it is not in a straightforward way. To draw a circle a program doesn't need a stack of data, if it has the equation. Could you then say the program still contains the information, even if not in a lookup table or library?
It seems to me the use of a library or lookup table by a program could be compared to programs in humans - our programs are actually lists of actions that are kept handy by the adaptive unconscious. But we don't need many of these lists if we formulate everything we do using reasoning. Executing a list of actions and executing an algorithm are not entirely different. I would say that the algorithm/equation approach contains more truth AND higher density thereof.
I am struggling with the distinction between algorithms and programs. If we use reasoning based on relationships, IE algorithms, we can produce a unique solution to each unique situation. This is related to the ideal of the Work. Without this reasoning, you can only do the same thing over again, and the results tend to be zero.
I think self-modifying code may be a reasonable analogy; after all the C's have said that some of our computers have developed slight consciousness.
As far as UFOs fighting in the skies, the C's have also said that storms can be battles in other densities/dimensions, so maybe they are referring to the storms when they said there would be battles in the sky.
Well I don't think that programs ARE consciousness. Programs are run on machines. So they simply dumbly execute whatever is programmed into them without consciously knowing why they are doing it. Even most people are machines exactly because of that. But I think that consciousness can be born if enough data or information is assimilated and something starts to fit together and one starts to be aware of things that were unknown before. It is also interesting question what is the difference between a unit that can draw circle from equation and one that can draw circle from tabulated data. I think that the tabulated data are like discontinuous information points, like crumbles but from the data an equation can be formed by inteligent observation. So the unit that uses equation should already made the connection between the dots and thus can perhaps use the information more effectively. I would say it learned something. So I think that the knowledge is simply connecting the dots in intelligent manner and drawing a compact conclusion that can lead to some universal law and universal understanding.
I would say a man is aware of every movement he makes and of every thought he thinks and knows why he is doing it or thinking it. So he's got consciousness.
tohuwabohu I hope we will not continue to be like machines that "simply dumbly execute whatever is programmed into them without consciously knowing why they are doing it".
I have tried to use a computer model/analogy to further describe "Information is stored in consciousness." I am glad to see the comparisons continued. Monotonic suggested that we could make map (almost like a flow-chart?) to make connections for the analogy and I think it is a great idea (wish I would have noticed in my previous reply, Monotonic).
monotonic said:
I think the C's have made a distinction between knowledge and consciousness. But while we're at it, why not bring up Being as well? Information, consciousness, knowledge, being, and so on. If we can think of all the related things and connect what the C's have said about them, maybe we can make a "map" with the interconnections? How about drawing it, with the words and the relationships as arrows connecting them? Visualizing may reveal a pattern.
With this in mind I will attempt to start a kind of map that we can develop together or we can all start a map and later combine them into one cohesive map.
The post by "sitting" who proposes that maybe "knowledge becomes consciousness" is another idea for developing the map, chart or visual diagram.
Quote from: Heimdallr on Today at 12:41:37 AM
Excellent post goyacobol, great job connecting the dots and bringing in concepts to flesh out your ideas.
Ditto that!
Mulling over all this, I thought of dragging in another word. A word the C's have used often. And expounded upon quite a bit. That word is knowledge.
I wonder if "information arranged by a truth" is not indeed the knowledge they've spoken of so much. Along with the dangers of false knowledge. If that is the case, then having knowledge become consciousness would require less of a conceptual leap...at least in my mind.
And they have said much about knowledge. Reviewing that material may well give added insight to the current discussion on consciousness and information.
Lastly, I'm beginning to feel that understanding what it (the various thingies) does...is at least as important as trying to understand what it (the same thingies) is. As the latter may simply be beyond our capacity of comprehension. As in Castaneda's the "unknowable".
Thanks for all the ideas
goyacobol
monotonic said:
The main point I wanted to make but ended up all but saying (weird how that happens) is that the truth seems to be inherent in the structure of a conscious program, but in a way that we don't recognize as truth because we are used to thinking of truth as discrete facts and figures, etc.
Mods please move this to a new thread if it is interesting enough. I've had these thoughts building up for a long time and as it turns out they kind of "discharged" through the keyboard. This is long-winded but I hope my writing style makes it okay to read, but I think the ideas are a bit disorganized. I've been playing with taking random concepts and trying to fit them into this perspective, and if there is no match, I find another thing to add on.
I have been thinking about how becoming aware could be described as a process of bringing the inner condition to "match" the outer reality. This meaning is reflected in the phrase "give everything it's due". Applying this to a conscious program, we see that the algorithm must "match" with the nature of the inputs and outputs of the program. Perhaps it could be thought of as holographic. Through reasoning, inspiration and curiosity, the program could begin to interface with the world beyond its sensors and outputs, and this would still be a growing "reflection" of the outer environment, with the sensors and outputs being only a material limitation.
I keep thinking of the idea of resonance, and how resonators are able to connect across very large distances, and wonder if there is a connection to the way a conscious program can expand even through material limitations, if the necessary effort is applied. Effort strengthens the resonant effect, and at full resonance energy passes freely through the intervening medium with little indication; this is mathematical. This seems to connect with the idea of Will.
When one immediately gives back what one receives, and takes nothing, one acts as a resonator. What one takes, serves to sap the energy of the resonance. If the resonance is strong, taking even a tiny amount may be enough to break it. I think this must be related to a conscious program and its ability to "couple" with reality outside of its material limitations. It is in the appropriate reaction and giving of dues. Energy can be forced through the medium, but you lose most of it. If instead you put energy in the resonator, the energy is protected, conserved, grows, and takes on the properties of the resonator which allows it to connect to distant sources, and to collect energies of the same frequency. The inclination to take a shortcut and force the medium is the always present lady in the red dress; by resisting dissipative impulses and applying truth to your energy, the energy you are given allows you to "couple" with the distant energies. Is this Will?
Material/medium limitations do have an effect. The stronger the resistance, the stronger the resonance must be to counteract it. In an electrical circuit, the stronger the resonance, the more "time" it takes to move energy, because a resonator has to accumulate enough energy in its vibration for full effect. But the C's tell us time doesn't exist, so maybe it in reality takes 1/energy to move our perception of time? What a surprising idea.
Resonance is also a way of organizing information. Information can be encoded in the vibration envelope of a resonance. So resonance connects us in more ways than energetically; it provides a conduit for information.
So, maybe this matches with some of the concepts of truth, will, and other things?
Self-observation is similar to negative feedback in electric circuits. Self-observation is what keeps one from giving or taking too much. It is also what can allow one to give all or to give none. Self-observation/feedback organizes the whole of one's substance by the guiding substance which performs the observing function. Without organizing self-feedback the constituent substances revert to their individual natures, a significant portion of which will be of the dissipative type and will instantly discharge all the energy from what is connected to the output, the focus of one's efforts. This is a continuum, so there is no black and white, but we can assume that without active organization, all forces tend towards equilibrium, and to acquire force means to resist equilibrium.
Unorganized materials have the tendency towards dissipation, to absorb energy like buffers. The ability to direct energy, though not creating it, is unique to the process of feedback/self-observation. Only in energized substances such as plasma or during an avalanche (plasma could be described as an avalanche of electricity) is energy released from storage in otherwise inert substances. Almost always, these chaotic discharges in nature do not take on a life of their own; the rockslide leaves its energy at the foot of the cliff. The plasma discharge destroys the points of discharge in a violent blaze. These are examples of positive feedback, causing the release of energy in materials which are already energized, either by gravity, by electricity, whichever form of energy it is. The self-observer is energized already and uses feedback to manipulate the energy. Without being energized, the substance of the observer cannot but fall into equilibrium and decay. But the property of being energized, coupled with feedback, allows the self-observer to direct those energies.
The directing of energy could be seen as negative dissipation, so it is interesting that self-observation creates the possibility of negative dissipation whereas disorganization leads to dissipation. For there to be conservation of energy, there must be equal amounts of self-observation and non-observation. I can't give a rooted reason why energized matter shows negative dissipation, a sign of self-observation, but I know that it must, based on all my reasoning here, and by what the C's and other sources say. It is always a specific energy level that triggers this negative dissipation, and results in a breakdown of the material. With no further organized self-observing, all the energy released is immediately dissipated in the resultants of the breakdown/reaction.
I see I'm using electronics heavily as an analogy, but AFAIK the C's treat math as a universal language and electronics is intimately connected with math. The way we use many of these 4th way words conforms to mathematical relationships. These parallels make sense to me in so far as the electronics is a parallel application of math. Electronics is just my window into math.
I have some further ideas about circles and ontology, but I haven't developed them very far. Circles are intimately connected to resonance. Think about it. "feedback loop". Mathematically, resonance can be seen as a cylinder with time as the non-circular coordinate. Resonance always involves two transducers connected in an active+passive configuration and the oscillation of energy between two forms along the third axis, which in our perspective is time, though a resonance could occur along any other continuum. Atomic particles are continually vibrating; they only differ in the degree.
chrismcdude said:
Great session, Chateau crew. Thanks for sharing it. :)
And Mr. Scott's monograph really made my day. So hilarious and so true.. ;)
monotonic said:
I think the C's have made a distinction between knowledge and consciousness. But while we're at it, why not bring up Being as well? Information, consciousness, knowledge, being, and so on. If we can think of all the related things and connect what the C's have said about them, maybe we can make a "map" with the interconnections? How about drawing it, with the words and the relationships as arrows connecting them? Visualizing may reveal a pattern.
After reading goyabocol's post, I had begun jotting down the main concepts in this session, along with ones from the previous sessions, and started making connections among them. And then monotonic posted about the same thing, the idea of creating a map. Talk about nonlocal resonance! I have been looking for a software that would allow me to build a concept map that can be shared with and edited by others as well. So far, I have come across one available on this website:
http://cmap.ihmc.us/
It's free and seems to be enough for the purpose at hand. So I just made an electronic version of the map I had been working on, using this software.
But first, some warnings are in order. I will say beforehand, all the possible errors in this map are mine alone. The copyrights to all the info in it is Laura's (just so no one thinks I am trying to be cheeky). I have provided a couple of links to sessions with Cs where I could find them. This is just a rough draft, which might confuse rather than help you, and is in no way complete. I want to share this in order to help myself and others learn from it, if possible. The brain also arranges information by association, so the idea of a concept map outlining some principal idea seems to be a natural one. Lastly, this is in no way a replacement for your good ol' brain.
Thus, at great mortal peril to myself :P, and at the risk of getting flamed by my forum colleagues, I present to you the knowledge map (see attached: "cass cmap sceenshot.PNG". I would have also attached the actual .cmap file for anyone to edit it, but the .cmap file type is not allowed as an attachment. Will send it over by any other means if anyone wants)
Let's improve it and use it as a tool for learning.
dant said:
chrismcdude said:
[...] but the .cmap file type is not allowed as an attachment.
Add .cmap to Zip file and attach.
As for Data Visualization Software used here, see:
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,27558.0.html
chrismcdude said:
dant said:
chrismcdude said:
[...] but the .cmap file type is not allowed as an attachment.
Add .cmap to Zip file and attach.
As for Data Visualization Software used here, see:
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,27558.0.html
Hehe, yeah I realized the same when I woke up this morning, that a .zip file is all I need! I have attached a compressed .zip file that contains a "My Cmaps" folder which has all the necessary project files.
And thanks a lot, dant. That thread on "Data Mining and Data Visualization Tools" is exactly what I was looking for.
Also, this morning I realized how similar this concept map would be to Ibn-Al-Arabi's concept of the Names/Faces of God, thanks to Laura's chapter on it here at http://cassiopaea.org/2010/05/18/the-wave-chapter-25-a-walk-in-nature-among-the-names-of-god-where-we-have-an-interview-with-the-vampire-and-discover-a-cosmic-egg/
It was mentioned by Cs that gravity is "God". So ultimately what we might be looking at here is a map outlining the various inter-relationships between different Names/Faces of God. I have not actually read Ibn-Arabi's work so I may be wrong. But Laura has written about it in many places that what the Cs talk about is very much similar to the sufi's work in some respects. I also realized that "thought" was somehow intrinsically related to this notion of Names/Faces of God. Thoughts are supposed to be shared by everyone and are common to all realms. "Thoughts are everything in existence." And thoughts are what ultimately help you understand an experience and/or make sense of it. Like, when you blankly stare at an object, it just is. We don't really know the object as it is, its essence. But what becomes important is the thoughts/attributes we use to describe that object. The object otherwise just exists, in potential, it might be completely "unknowable" to us. But thoughts convey the meaning, the color of an object, "how" it feels where we try to describe its "blackness" or "softness" etc etc. But there might be a deeper way of knowing, that I don't know about it. ;)
So now what we can do is add a lot of other Names of God like Love etc and see their relationship with concepts like Knowledge, for example. And we might get a better idea/understanding of these different inter-relationships among them.
I would also love to add concepts of electromagnetism and antimatter (if I had better understanding of them) to the concept map and so on and so forth, to try and get to a fuller description of how all these things tie in together. For now, I'll need to do a lot more reading and contemplation on it.
