Energy and Structure

[Buddy]

Some observations on negative resistance:

1: Ordinarily damped systems become undamped with the introduction of negative resistance. Resonators vibrate when exposed to it.
2: Growing oscillations are caused by negative resistance. Decaying oscillations are caused by positive resistance.
3: Negative resistance is always to blame when a small disturbance has a large result.

An interesting question is, based on these examples, what is the reaction most people have when they encounter negative resistance in life? How do they feel, and what are things that have made you feel this way? This way we may come up with concrete examples of negative resistance acting in our lives. We may then identify the structures and forces involved in these circumstances.

After spending some time investigating a bit - from researching the inner workings of different kinds of clocks, to scanning ahead of chapter 7 in ISOTM, it occurs to me to ask:

Have you made it through chapter nine of ISOTM yet; specifically the portion of the chapter following the 'diagram of the universe' lecture? This part of the chapter deals with 'three-story man', the different categories of 'food' and a part of the context of this topic that I left out when excerpting from Cosmic Secrets. For example, that part which relates to "three octaves of radiations between four points" which seems to be another important concept to grasp as it relates to the octaves and three forces teaching.

I ask, because since parts of Cosmic Secrets are coming across as a bit more hypothetical than G's own words, excerpts of that material might be more distracting to this discussion. In ISOTM, G may provide better references to "structures and forces" that meet your requirements, but I'm not sure.

With regard to the specific observations on negative resistance and in particular your number three, I wonder if you are thinking of this topic in terms of "a balanced state" being the optimum or highest value of a system. The way you phrased the statement using "blame" is what makes me wonder.

In any case, the question is bringing to mind all kinds of concepts from sociology ("tipping points", see Malcolm Gladwell in a book by the same name) to personal experiences as a kid growing up in public school.

Related to the latter, considering the structure of a typical classroom setting with all its conformity requirements and considering the form or role of 'student' that my personal restraint takes, I see myself as barely containing or holding back a certain magnitude of energy. With a small input such as the sound of a bell or the teachers permission to end the class, the "restrained student" structure breaks and I feel like a bird that's been un-caged to spread his wings and fly away. Or, maybe like that child at recess who runs out of the building, beating the rest of the kids to the playground and behaves as though he needs to be occupying all the playground equipment at the same time.

On the other hand, there is the fact that the very act of creating and occupying a role as "good student" forces me, several times every day, to contain my energy in this role as I go from one period to the next, feeling a building depression I sometimes describe as involuntarily teaching myself a sort of learned helplessness in the face of 'authority.' It seems to me that this is definitely a structure worth breaking.

Well, that's a couple of ways to look at this experience and I'm clueless as to how close I am to what you're looking for so at this point I'm interested in your thoughts about what's been posted since your last reply.

 

[monotonic]

I don't consider any state concerning resistance to be "higher" for its own reason. I think that is an absurd way to look at it. All elements of a given system work together to provide the result. The system we are trying to elucidate has negative resistance as one of it elements. Negative resistance itself is relatively well-understood. To say that balanced resistance is "higher" is like saying that a drumstick is holier than a snare. Like trying to determine how many angels can fit on a pin.

I am simply looking at the relationships I understand and trying relate them to the more mysterious ideas in order to elucidate them. That is my intention anyways.

I have only gotten to chapter 8 so far I think, I happen to be reading it for the first time at the moment.

There is a difference between high sensitivity and negative resistance. Negative resistance is not necessary for high sensitivity. When I think of negative resistance as an experience, I think of things getting "out of control" like stumbling on ice, or addictive behaviors. Often if we step back and remove ourselves from a situation, things will grind to a halt on their own friction. Where negative resistance is concerned, we have to step in an stop things from going too far, and sometimes actively monitor, making continual adjustments to act as the positive resistance.

 

[Buddy]

When I think of negative resistance as an experience, I think of things getting "out of control" like stumbling on ice, or addictive behaviors. Often if we step back and remove ourselves from a situation, things will grind to a halt on their own friction. Where negative resistance is concerned, we have to step in an stop things from going too far, and sometimes actively monitor, making continual adjustments to act as the positive resistance.

That answers what I was wanting to know quite well, thanks!

Also, FWIW, you might be interested in comparing Gurdjieff's description of how inputting energy into a system at just the right time, aids us in transiting certain intervals on an octave, with Laura's mention of the "swing" in The Wave Chapter 27.

 

[monotonic]

That chapter fits completely with my understanding of negative resistance, as far as I can tell. There are more details to be had when you think of nonlinear dynamics, which is the only way one frequency might affect another, or new frequencies created.

I had an idea this morning about the brain. The brain is a giant feedback system. It is amazing that it is stable at all, considering all the loops and circuits working together. When it does become unstable, seizures are the result AFAIK. At the same time, I have heard that epileptics can be more sensitive to psychic phenomena.

To keep the system stable, there needs to be an effective means of controlling the speed of neuron circuits. Paradoxes or contradictions in thought may create oscillators in the brain. Certain thought centers which aren't synergistic must be separated, IE cannot be active at the same time. Furthermore, individual neuron circuits must have feedback but cannot be unstable, so a low-level controlled dampening is necessary. I read in a book today that expectations cause a release of dopamine in the brain. I suspect that expectations modulate the neuronal damping system, and that anticipation vs non-anticipation may be closely connected with this idea.

 

[Buddy]

I had an idea this morning about the brain. The brain is a giant feedback system. It is amazing that it is stable at all, considering all the loops and circuits working together. When it does become unstable, seizures are the result AFAIK.

I wouldn't doubt it. In the publication, Neuroprotective Role of Dopamine Against Hippocampal Cell Death, the author points to one effect of Glutamate excitotoxicity.

Glutamate excitotoxicity plays a key role in the induction of neuronal cell death occurring in many neuropathologies, including epilepsy. Systemic administration of the glutamatergic agonist kainic acid (KA) is a well characterized model to study epilepsy-induced brain damage.

Source: _http://www.jneurosci.org/content/20/22/8643

To keep the system stable, there needs to be an effective means of controlling the speed of neuron circuits. Paradoxes or contradictions in thought may create oscillators in the brain. Certain thought centers which aren't synergistic must be separated, IE cannot be active at the same time. Furthermore, individual neuron circuits must have feedback but cannot be unstable, so a low-level controlled dampening is necessary. I read in a book today that expectations cause a release of dopamine in the brain. I suspect that expectations modulate the neuronal damping system, and that anticipation vs non-anticipation may be closely connected with this idea.

What I gather so far is that dopamine is the damping system, and where the reward system is concerned, the trigger is "desire" rather than expectation, depending on how much 'desire' makes up one's understanding of 'expectation', I suppose.

However, the idea that dopamine is the 'reward chemical' of the brain now seems too simple as more evidence has been gathered. Dopamine is known to be released when unpleasant or aversive stimuli are encountered, suggesting that it is not only associated with 'rewards' or pleasure. Also, the firing of dopamine neurons occur when a pleasurable activity is expected, regardless of whether it actually happens or not.

This suggests that dopamine may be involved in desire rather than pleasure. Drugs that are known to reduce dopamine activity (e.g. antipsychotics) have been shown to reduce people's desire for pleasurable stimuli, despite the fact that they will rate them as just as pleasurable when they actually encounter or consume them. It seems that these drugs reduce the 'wanting' but not the 'liking', providing more evidence for the desire theory.

_http://www.psychologistworld.com/biological/neurotransmitters/dopamine.php?&print=yes
_http://www.math.sunysb.edu/~ancuta/Dopamine.html

Caveat: I haven't taken the time to cross reference all of this for confirmation.

 

[aragorn]

Buddy, fwiw, I was pondering this 'law of octaves' thing and how it relates to musical intervals a few years ago. You can find that thread here: Q about Law of Octaves.

Just to clarify, I'm just addressing the "music part" of this discussion. My take on this is, that thinking hard how to "match" diatonic musical scales to G:s laws could be an unnecessary waste of time. Perhaps the reason why diatonic scales and certain intervals sound good to us lies in the universal laws - as a natural cause. As you can see in that thread i linked to, I was occupied in understanding all the numbers and ratios. I don't know, but right now I'm thinking that this is similar to researching "sacred geometry" etc., an endless exercise.

Nevertheless, you bring up interesting points...and maybe there's something to them.

 

[RflctnOfU]

Buddy, fwiw, I was pondering this 'law of octaves' thing and how it relates to musical intervals a few years ago. You can find that thread here: Q about Law of Octaves.

Just to clarify, I'm just addressing the "music part" of this discussion. My take on this is, that thinking hard how to "match" diatonic musical scales to G:s laws could be an unnecessary waste of time. Perhaps the reason why diatonic scales and certain intervals sound good to us lies in the universal laws - as a natural cause. As you can see in that thread i linked to, I was occupied in understanding all the numbers and ratios. I don't know, but right now I'm thinking that this is similar to researching "sacred geometry" etc., an endless exercise.

Nevertheless, you bring up interesting points...and maybe there's something to them.

Before determining that the 'arithmatic' of diatonic musical scales is an endless excercise similar to 'sacred' geometry, perhaps a read of Cosmic Secrets would be in order. It's a relatively short book, but is basically all based on extrapolating the universe from a combination of the laws of 3 and 7. FWIW, I think the arguments made in the course of the book are DAMNED impressive, and I think with the 'engineer' within you, as referrenced in the thread you started a few years ago, will understand this particular exposition on the law of 7/3.

BTW, have you had a chance to read BT's yet?? I am in the process of taking notes, putting them in order, etc.. to start a serious deconstruction of the Tales, as you saw in the thread I started a couple days ago. If you have read the book, and become somewhat familiar with the text, I hope you will, at the very least, be a passive participant. :)

Kris

 

[monotonic]

My take on this is, that thinking hard how to "match" diatonic musical scales to G:s laws could be an unnecessary waste of time. Perhaps the reason why diatonic scales and certain intervals sound good to us lies in the universal laws - as a natural cause. As you can see in that thread i linked to, I was occupied in understanding all the numbers and ratios. I don't know, but right now I'm thinking that this is similar to researching "sacred geometry" etc., an endless exercise.

I had the same impression. The chapter of the Wave that Buddy referenced provides plenty of inspiration, and to apply the knowledge in that chapter is a sufficient task let alone trying to improve on it. The only thing that has kept me asking is that knowledge is knowledge, if acquired with good perspective, and this is where my curiosity is leading me at the moment. I don't see myself losing interest in this subject, although so far it hasn't given me many useful results.

 

[Buddy]

Buddy, fwiw, I was pondering this 'law of octaves' thing and how it relates to musical intervals a few years ago. You can find that thread here: Q about Law of Octaves.

Thank you. I was previously unaware of that thread and I have just now read and enjoyed it!

Just to clarify, I'm just addressing the "music part" of this discussion.

Yeah, strictly speaking, the "music" part may not be immediately relevant, but since so many people are familiar with music and what a piano keyboard looks like, I think it makes a great concrete referent with which to start! That said, you probably noticed in Reply # 30 where I stated my intention to hold off on further references to that material in question, and why I'm doing so?

My take on this is, that thinking hard how to "match" diatonic musical scales to G:s laws could be an unnecessary waste of time.

Thanks. I've already matched them, though. The problem as I see it is not in matching diatonic music scales to G's laws, it's in matching any of that with monotonic's questions. This stuff is relatively easy to understand on the conceptual level. Obtaining granularity in the understanding and applying it in a way that addresses monotonic's questions and in a way Stevie Argyll suggested appears to be a task altogether different. That's why I posted alternate references.

As you can see in that thread i linked to, I was occupied in understanding all the numbers and ratios.

Did you have all your concerns addressed satisfactorily?

I don't know, but right now I'm thinking that this is similar to researching "sacred geometry" etc., an endless exercise.

Thankfully, a lot of this researching has already been done by the author of Cosmic Secrets, so a person interested in this stuff might get a lot of mileage on the path the author has already laid out, thus saving him(her)self a lot of time.

The author thoroughly deals with the relationships between the laws and G's representations of Man in these terms, so if his logic is in error, anyone who understands Man according to G should be able to tell immediately. Interestingly enough, he also carries these concepts down to the level of transfer RNA and across areas as diverse as the periodic table of elements and an ordinary deck of playing cards and Tarot cards, demonstrating correlations along the way. For me, it's really worth reading just to see all that!

Nevertheless, you bring up interesting points...and maybe there's something to them.

Thanks.

FWIW, I'm attaching a short excerpt from Cosmic Secrets that might provide a useful visualization with which to think about Stevie's hypothetical scenario on your previously mentioned thread (must be logged in to see). I think you'll like it and find it worthwhile; if not now, then sometime in the future.
.
.

 

[John G]

I don't know, but right now I'm thinking that this is similar to researching "sacred geometry" etc., an endless exercise.

Thankfully, a lot of this researching has already been done by the author of Cosmic Secrets, so a person interested in this stuff might get a lot of mileage on the path the author has already laid out, thus saving him(her)self a lot of time.

The author thoroughly deals with the relationships between the laws and G's representations of Man in these terms, so if his logic is in error, anyone who understands Man according to G should be able to tell immediately. Interestingly enough, he also carries these concepts down to the level of transfer RNA and across areas as diverse as the periodic table of elements and an ordinary deck of playing cards and Tarot cards, demonstrating correlations along the way. For me, it's really worth reading just to see all that!

Sacred geometry is best when it leads to actual geometry/math cause then it doesn't really even matter if the sacred part was correct. The rows of the Pascal triangle are definitely a good thing, that's directly related to real math. Tony Smith derives playing cards and Tarot cards from them too. The rows of the Pascal Triangle are graded Clifford Algebra dimensions and Smith derives the exceptional algebras F4,E6,E7, and E8 from them. F4 has 52 degrees of freedom and E6 has 78. These exceptional algebras have the math property Triality which I think is very much related to the way octaves are started 120 degrees apart at the Law of 3 locations in ISOTM:

Food - Air - Impressions would be the Triality or for Smith's physics, Spacetime - Matter - Antimatter or for the Enneagram as a personality model, Process - Development - Consulting. The math is real but physics and personality models can certainly be incorrect.

 

[aragorn]

My take on this is, that thinking hard how to "match" diatonic musical scales to G:s laws could be an unnecessary waste of time.

Thanks. I've already matched them, though. The problem as I see it is not in matching diatonic music scales to G's laws, it's in matching any of that with monotonic's questions. This stuff is relatively easy to understand on the conceptual level. Obtaining granularity in the understanding and applying it in a way that addresses monotonic's questions and in a way Stevie Argyll suggested appears to be a task altogether different. That's why I posted alternate references.

As you can see in that thread i linked to, I was occupied in understanding all the numbers and ratios.

Did you have all your concerns addressed satisfactorily?

Well, yes...kind of. Sure, the numbers G uses match the musical intervals, tempering and scales etc. But I didn't continue to dig for any deeper meanings, since I couldn't find any practical use for the information/numbers. But as a musician, I do like a lot using the musical scale as an analogy. :)

 

[RflctnOfU]

My take on this is, that thinking hard how to "match" diatonic musical scales to G:s laws could be an unnecessary waste of time.

Thanks. I've already matched them, though. The problem as I see it is not in matching diatonic music scales to G's laws, it's in matching any of that with monotonic's questions. This stuff is relatively easy to understand on the conceptual level. Obtaining granularity in the understanding and applying it in a way that addresses monotonic's questions and in a way Stevie Argyll suggested appears to be a task altogether different. That's why I posted alternate references.

As you can see in that thread i linked to, I was occupied in understanding all the numbers and ratios.

Did you have all your concerns addressed satisfactorily?

Well, yes...kind of. Sure, the numbers G uses match the musical intervals, tempering and scales etc. But I didn't continue to dig for any deeper meanings, since I couldn't find any practical use for the information/numbers. But as a musician, I do like a lot using the musical scale as an analogy. :)

I think that the practicality in the info/numbers lies in it's 'totality'. BTW, what kind of musician?? Personally, I am an orchestral trumpet player, and I like to compose as well.

Kris

 

[John G]

Those musics intervals are very related to the Pascal Triangle Clifford Algebra powers of 2 (hypercube vertices) and powers of 3 like Gurdjieff used for his 3-6-12-24... scheme (sub-hypercubes).

http://vixra.org/pdf/0907.0040v3.pdf

Plato, to construct a musical scale, used the full N=8
binary 2-structure but only N=5 of the ternary 3-structure
N 2^N 3^N
0 1
1 2 3 = 2 + 1
2 4 9 = 4 + 4+1
3 8 27 = 8 + 12+6+1
4 16 81 = 16 + 32+24+8+1
5 32 243=32+80+80+40+10+1
6 64
7 128
8 256

Plato used the numbers 256 and 243 to form the ratio
256/243, which, along with 9/8,
let him construct the the first octave as:
1 9/8 81/64 4/3 3/2 27/16 243/128 2
by using the multiplicative intervals:
9/8 9/8 256/243 9/8 9/8 9/8 256/243

Africans developed IFA Oracle
divination based on the square of 16 = 16x16 = 256 =
= 2^8 corresponding to the vertices of an 8-dimensional
hypercube and to the binary 2-choice Clifford algebra
Cl(8) and so to related ones such as Cl(8)xCl(8) = Cl(16).
Since the number of sub-hypercubes in an 8-dimensional
hypercube is 6,561 = 81x81 = 3^8, the IFA Oracle has
N=8 ternary 3-structure as well as binary 2-structure.

As ancient African games such as Owari show, binary 2-
structure corresponds to static states and ternary 3-
structure corresponds to dynamic states. Mathematically,
using binary 2-choice static states to define dynamics on
3 ternary neighbor states produces the 256 elements of
Elementary Cellular Automata.

For me the 3 ternary neighbor states is most directly related to the n=8=2^3 so I'm not personally overly sure how the 3^n relates to the Cellular Automata simulation/game (it's physics related to). But both 2^n and 3^n seem hypercube and musical scale related.

 

[Buddy]

I think that the practicality in the info/numbers lies in it's 'totality'.

I would agree with that. For me, I can't separate the word "octave" from a specific set and number of vibrations, whether the context is music or man. If I try, then it's just an empty word.

 

[monotonic]

I had the idea that the I Ching was something like a mathematical list of all the situations a person could be in, corresponding to the number of influences that can affect us in our lives. Would it be possible, to take G's 48 "influences" or whatnot and try to name them and ascribe them to experiences and situations? If nothing else, then perhaps we could try to use what we know to reverse-engineer divination techniques?

AFAIK, divination relies on dowsing-type stuff, IE the subconscious, pendulums, dice/coin throwing, random/chaotic processes and whatnot, and I don't think we could separate this from divining. But, perhaps this "sacred math" was used to construct the "map" which is dowsed, and if the map were memorized it may help give us the potential, with careful observation, to see the influences acting in real-time.