How limitations literally define us

[Psalehesost]

I'd like to network the below ideas.



According to the C's, each of us is a "copy of the universe in which you dwell". A limited copy, as can be seen in that we are not the All as One. What limits it? Assumptions, these being the laws (as Gurdjieff terms them) which limit us and the world (in the sense of our density) we live in. Learning changes assumptions and so removes laws from us; having removed enough laws to no longer fit in this mode, we will go into the next density.

If we are all All, and distinct as differently limited "copies" thereof due to our individual assumptions/limitations, then for practical purposes we are literally defined by our limitations.

The All with one set of limitations is me; the All with another set of limitations is you. And so it goes for everything in existence on every scale. (obviously, there are relations between instances of the All with different sets of limitations. for example, there is the whole of a compound object as well as its parts, any physical thing larger than the smallest part being an example. and for that matter, our psychology and its content-parts being an example)

In short, I will refer to these limitations simply as the "set". So we "are" our set. The All exists with an infinite variety of sets simultaneously. Fundamentally, there is the set of no limitations (one pole of existence) and the set of all limitations (the other pole of existence) - and everything in-between.

But all along, all in the All including the All as All is the very same mind. Why do we only experience our mind? This limitation is part of our sets. Meanwhile, the all with the empty set (pure being) will experience us all, as well as every part of each of us.

Strictly speaking, there is only one instance of the All with a given set. For instance, only one me exactly as I am now. The next moment I am at a different point in space/time, and as such this limitation (along with countless others marking the "state" of many things in me), though still equally limiting, has changed, limiting me to a different "place". (the reason I experience time linearly is that all sets that are "me" along "time" in this life share a limitation causing this manner of experience) There might be an infinite variety of "me"s with very slightly differing sets in parallel existences. Still, only one exactly as I am at a specific point of existence.


I am now at a loss as to what more to say and getting too tired to think, so I'll leave it at the above.

 

[Al Today]

Thank you for for a question hard pressed for words. Here is my question of few words:

Perhaps this is where the veil of forgetfulness comes into play. With all the permutations of possibilities. avalible, how can one experience discovery new if one knows of all others?

 

[Leo40]

Perhaps it would further the enquiry to say: You are by identifying with your limitations?
Once you discover that there is a limitation, you expand beyond it, i.e. Knowledge.
This defines the process of growth which is infinite.
Just some thoughts,

 

[andi]

-funny, i wander if the creation thinks of it self as limited, since it creates all this roles for itself ,where on role is us ,and plays all this roles from very limited to less limited.
-i remeber Gurdjieff saing : 'The rules of the game make the essance of the game'
How good a chess game would be without its rules? Not so fun ...well, it wouldnt be a game would it?
Then if life is to exist , limitations are the name of the game, and that is what make it fun.

Of course , i may get tired of the game and want to play another one witch has more posibilities ..
..just a thoght, just a game

 

[Helle]

Read your post a couple of times, not sure I get it. Do you speak of the Laws from ISOTM?

Learning changes assumptions and so removes laws from us; having removed enough laws to no longer fit in this mode, we will go into the next density.

The laws are not removed are they? As long as we are here, we are under the laws? We might understand the laws through gaining knowledge, but does that free us from them? When we graduate to 4D universe, we'll live under some other laws, I guess.

The All with one set of limitations is me; the All with another set of limitations is you

Why do we have different kinds of limitations in your mind? I don't see Us as having different kinds of limitations, I only see us (us here in 3D STS), as having a different kind of understanding of our mutual limitations.

But all along, all in the All including the All as All is the very same mind. Why do we only experience our mind?

I don't know about you, but I don't believe, that I only experience my mind. I MOSTLY experience my mind yes, but not ALL the time. I have glimpses of something more, deeper, unlimited, All-encompassing.

Strictly speaking, there is only one instance of the All with a given set. For instance, only one me exactly as I am now. The next moment I am at a different point in space/time, and as such this limitation (along with countless others marking the "state" of many things in me), though still equally limiting, has changed, limiting me to a different "place". (the reason I experience time linearly is that all sets that are "me" along "time" in this life share a limitation causing this manner of experience) There might be an infinite variety of "me"s with very slightly differing sets in parallel existences. Still, only one exactly as I am at a specific point of existence

Mmm yes, and? I'm really trying to grasp what you're trying to convery here, but I don't think I really get it. Might be my lack of understanding the English language.

You say that our limitations really define us, as individuals, each one of us with a different set of limitations?

Sorry for being so Dense, but HOW do we have different kinds of limitations? :)

 

[Psalehesost]

Read your post a couple of times, not sure I get it. Do you speak of the Laws from ISOTM?

Learning changes assumptions and so removes laws from us; having removed enough laws to no longer fit in this mode, we will go into the next density.

The laws are not removed are they? As long as we are here, we are under the laws? We might understand the laws through gaining knowledge, but does that free us from them? When we graduate to 4D universe, we'll live under some other laws, I guess.

I connected the idea of assumptions (as described below) with laws as described there, yes.

Q: (L) What distinguishes one realm from another?
A: Assumptions.
Q: (L) Okay, what you assume or expect is what you perceive about that atom depending upon which reality you are in, is that correct?
A: Close.
Q: (L) What determines your assumptions?
A: Experience.
Q: (L) My experience of atoms is that they congregate in such a way as to form solid matter...
A: Every thing that exists is merely a lesson.
Q: (L) Okay, so once we have learned certain lessons, as in experience of certain things, then our assumptions change?
A: Yes.

As for 3D:

Q: (L) What kind of lessons are we talking about here?
A: Karmic and simple understandings.
Q: (L) What are the key elements of these understandings, and are they fairly universal?
A: They are universal.

(though I'd guess that the "are universal" bit applies for lessons for graduation from other densities, too)

So the idea is that the removing of laws/changing of assumptions as a result of learning (specifically, learning the lessons. I could've been more clear there) is what makes us move on.

The All with one set of limitations is me; the All with another set of limitations is you

Why do we have different kinds of limitations in your mind? I don't see Us as having different kinds of limitations, I only see us (us here in 3D STS), as having a different kind of understanding of our mutual limitations.

[...]

You say that our limitations really define us, as individuals, each one of us with a different set of limitations?

Sorry for being so Dense, but HOW do we have different kinds of limitations? :)

If you picture the All as a whole, then each of us is a part of that whole. A different part; as such, you arrive at each of these parts from the whole by differently limiting the whole to yield the part in question.

That said, the general kind of limitation is similar, as we have 3D STS-being in common. A chunk of matter (1D) or a 2D being, or a lizzie (4D STS), or the C's (6D STO) would have much larger differences to their part of the whole, and so in how you limit the whole to yield that part.

As for the reason for thinking in terms of going from the whole to the part:

Source? There is no such thing. [...] You literally possess, within your consciousness profile, all the power that exists within all of creation!?! You absolutely have all that exists, ever has, or ever will, contained within your mind. All you have to do is learn how to use it, and at that moment, you will literally, literally, be all that is, was, and ever will be!!!!!!!!

As they (also) say, "The entire sum total of all existence exists within each of you, and vice versa." Accessing it is however limited by assumptions/laws, with seven major levels (the densities) of presence and absence of limitations.


In short: Each of us is the All limited by itself to a different part of itself. Differently limited as we are different parts.

OSIT.

But all along, all in the All including the All as All is the very same mind. Why do we only experience our mind?

I don't know about you, but I don't believe, that I only experience my mind. I MOSTLY experience my mind yes, but not ALL the time. I have glimpses of something more, deeper, unlimited, All-encompassing.

It was a bit oversimplified, and I was thinking mainly of the fact that we experience our own existence as opposed to others' existences. (referring to that which experiences our existence as "our mind")

Strictly speaking, there is only one instance of the All with a given set. For instance, only one me exactly as I am now. The next moment I am at a different point in space/time, and as such this limitation (along with countless others marking the "state" of many things in me), though still equally limiting, has changed, limiting me to a different "place". (the reason I experience time linearly is that all sets that are "me" along "time" in this life share a limitation causing this manner of experience) There might be an infinite variety of "me"s with very slightly differing sets in parallel existences. Still, only one exactly as I am at a specific point of existence

Mmm yes, and? I'm really trying to grasp what you're trying to convery here, but I don't think I really get it. Might be my lack of understanding the English language.

What I'm trying to convey was probably the fuzziest of all in my post. I had arrived at a way of thinking that led me through my previous concepts with greater clarity (resolving a few ambiguities) and wanted to see if the conclusions from it were correct, and if so, to share the way of thinking (as expressed in the whole of the post).

The just-above-quoted was the last I wrote before I got altogether too tired to think, and not as clear. A better way (after more thinking) to put part of it could be:

There is literally no difference between the whole of the All limited to exactly the same part of itself several times; for practical purposes (at any rate), these being equivalent, there is only one instance of the All with a given set of limitations (that limit it to a part of itself).

(the actual usefulness of this realization is probably zero)

Then I gave examples and further delved into the method of thinking - practically speaking, I got carried away.

 

[Helle]

While trying to reply this this post, my internet kept dying on me this morning (HELLO mercury retrograd?!) - So I gave up. It's back now, and I'm going to really fast reply at least something while I can ;D

I think we understand the word limitations differently Csayeursost. I sorta get the overall idea of what you're conveying here, there's only one thing I don't agree with, and it could be as I said, due to differences in understanding a word.

So the idea is that the removing of laws/changing of assumptions as a result of learning (specifically, learning the lessons. I could've been more clear there) is what makes us move on.

I still don't see it as the laws are removed, just because we change our perception of it. A universal Law is a law is law, whether I can see it / understand it / perceive it or not.

Yes we have different assumptions, yes we learn and develop and grow, yes we're a part of a Whole, but I still don't see why I should be under a set of different limitations, than you or anyone else here in 3D.

 

[Smallwood]

Helle, you can use Notepad or a similar program to write your longer messages off-line, in case of a poorly working connection. That way the message doesn't get lost which it possibly could when only writing to the forum message field. Highlight a text with your mouse that you want to share, then press CTRL and C and select the field in which you want to copy that message and press CTRL and V. Perhaps you knew this, but it can really save from a lot of sweat, anger and frustration.

I still don't see it as the laws are removed, just because we change our perception of it. A universal Law is a law is law, whether I can see it / understand it / perceive it or not.

The law still exists for lower densities and "lower" beings, but since you already know it's workings, you can avoid falling into it. In that way, it sort of disappears as you grow and learn and I would take a haphazard guess that a lesson that is learned is a former law that you've ensured no longer holds you in it's sway. That is my conjecture though and a law/assumption and lessons learned may not be exactly the two sides of the same coin in every sense.

 

[Helle]

I'm having severe difficulties replying today.. Just now I got several internal errors

Helle, you can use Notepad or a similar program to write your longer messages off-line, in case of a poorly working connection. That way the message doesn't get lost which it possibly could when only writing to the forum message field. Highlight a text with your mouse that you want to share, then press CTRL and C and select the field in which you want to copy that message and press CTRL and V. Perhaps you knew this, but it can really save from a lot of sweat, anger and frustration.

Yes thank you, I thought of that, too late though..

I was thinking about Laws! And I looked it up. I guess we CAN remove /set us free from some laws. Not that easy though :)

The study of the forty eight laws to which man is subject cannot be abstract like the study of astronomy, they can be studies only by observing them in oneself and by getting free from them. At the beginning a man must simply understand that he is quite needlessly subject to a thousand petty but irksome laws which have been created for him by other people and by himself. When he attempts to get free from them he will see that he cannot. Long and persistant attempts to gain freedom from them will convince him of his slavery. The laws to which man is subject can only be studies by struggling with them, by trying to get free from them. But a great deal of knowledge is needed in order to become free from one law without creating for oneself another in its place.

Unless this is not the laws you're referring to ?

 

[gotogo]

I was thinking about Laws! And I looked it up. I guess we CAN remove /set us free from some laws. Not that easy though :)

The study of the forty eight laws to which man is subject cannot be abstract like the study of astronomy, they can be studies only by observing them in oneself and by getting free from them. At the beginning a man must simply understand that he is quite needlessly subject to a thousand petty but irksome laws which have been created for him by other people and by himself. When he attempts to get free from them he will see that he cannot. Long and persistant attempts to gain freedom from them will convince him of his slavery. The laws to which man is subject can only be studies by struggling with them, by trying to get free from them. But a great deal of knowledge is needed in order to become free from one law without creating for oneself another in its place.

Unless this is not the laws you're referring to ?

Hello Helle,
You can also refer the other parts of ISOTM and connect dots...

[quote author=Ouspensky - In Search of the Miraculous p83-4]
The Absolute, that is, the state of things when the All constitutes one Whole, is, as it were, the primordial state of things, out of which, by division and differentiation, arises the diversity of the phenomena observed by us.

Man lives in all these worlds but in different ways.

This means that he is first of all influenced by the nearest world, the one immediate to him, of which he forms a part. Worlds further away also influence man, directly as well as through other intermediate worlds, but their action is diminished in proportion to their remoteness or to the increase in the difference between them and man. As will be seen later, the direct influence of the Absolute does not reach man. But the influence of the next world and the influence of the star world are already perfectly clear in the life of man, although they are certainly unknown to science."
[/quote]

[quote author=Ouspensky - In Search of the Miraculous p90]
Summing up all that has been said before about the ray of creation, from world 1 down to world 96, it must be added that the figures by which worlds are designated indicate the number of forces, or orders of laws, which govern the worlds in question.

In the Absolute there is only one force and only one law—the single and independent will of the Absolute. In the next world there are three forces or three orders of laws. In the next there are six orders of laws; in the following one, twelve; and so on. In our world, that is, the earth, forty-eight orders of laws are operating to which we are subject and by which our whole life is governed. If we lived on the moon we should be subject to ninety-six orders of laws, that is, our life and activity would be still more mechanical and we should not have the possibilities of escape from mechanicalness that we now have.
[/quote]

[quote author=Ouspensky - In Search of the Miraculous p91]
On the earth we are very far removed from the will of the Absolute; we are separated from it by forty-eight orders of mechanical laws. If we could free ourselves from one half of these laws, we should find ourselves subject to only twenty­ four orders of laws, that is, to the laws of the planetary world, and then we should be one stage nearer to the Absolute and its will. If we could then free ourselves from one half of these laws, we should be subject to the laws of the sun (twelve laws) and con­ sequently one stage nearer still to the Absolute. If, again, we could free ourselves from half of these laws, we should be subject to the laws of the starry world and separated by only one stage from the immediate will of the Absolute.

And the possibility for man thus gradually to free himself from mechanical laws exists.

The study of the forty-eight orders of laws to which man is subject cannot be abstract like the study of astronomy; they can be studied only by observing them in oneself and by getting free from them. At the beginning a man must simply understand that he is quite needlessly subject to a thousand petty but irksome laws which have been created for him by other people and by himself. When he attempts to get free from them he will see that he cannot. Long and persistent attempts to gain freedom from them will convince him of his slavery. The laws to which man is subject can only be studied by struggling with them, by trying to get free from them. But a great deal of knowledge is needed in order to become free from one law without creating for oneself another in its place.
[/quote]

[quote author=Ouspensky - In Search of the Miraculous p110]
Freedom, liberation, this must be the aim of man. To become free, to be liberated from slavery: this is what a man ought to strive for when he becomes even a little conscious of his position. There is nothing else for him, and nothing else is possible so long as he remains a slave both inwardly and outwardly. But he cannot cease to be a slave outwardly while he remains a slave inwardly. Therefore in order to become free, man must gain inner freedom.

The first reason for man's inner slavery is his ignorance, and above all, his ignorance of himself. Without self-knowledge, without understanding the working and functions of his machine, man cannot be free, he cannot govern himself and he will always remain a slave, and the plaything of the forces acting upon him.

This is why in all ancient teachings the first demand at the beginning of the way to liberation was: 'Know thyself.'
[/quote]

[quote author=Ouspensky - In Search of the Miraculous p168]
I mentioned before about fate and accident in man's life. We will now take the meaning of these words in more detail. Fate also exists but not for everyone. Most people are separated from their fate and live under the law of accident only. Fate is the result of planetary influences which correspond to a man's type. We will speak about types later. In the meantime you must grasp one thing. A man can have the fate which corresponds to his type but he practically never does have it. This arises because fate has relation to only one part of man, namely to his essence.

It must be understood that man consists of two parts: essence and personality. Essence in man is what is his own. Personality in man is what is 'not his own.' 'Not his own' means what has come from outside, what he has learned, or reflects, all traces of exterior impressions left in the memory and in the sensations, all words and movements that have been learned, all feelings created by imitation—all this is 'not his own,' all this is personality.
[/quote]

The last quote indicates the laws 'essence' is following and the laws 'personality' is following are different. (BTW, I posted this yesterday for a possible 'type' theory Gs referring here. Note that this is about 'essence' type not the 'personality' type you referred on this thread.)

And you can see if your 'essence' becomes more active than 'false personalities' - 'buffers', 'programs' and so on then you feel literally freer because your 'identity' is not 'identifying' with the parts that are under unnecessary laws. A good example you can try to experience for a such 'shift' is to apply the following Ark's quote I found on the Forum in a daily situation when 'false personalities' becomes active in you. :)

[quote author=Ark]
So, I suggest, forget all your "I should", and replace it by "I ALWAYS WANTED...". It may take
a while for you to specify what it is that you "always wanted", but, on the other hand, perhaps you
know it right away.

FORGET "I should", forget it all. Replace it by "I LOVE TO DO ...." and skip completely the TIME issue.

If you need five lifes to accomplish what you WANT, let this be the first of those five. And then, without any "time obligation"
or "should stressing" - start it.

First step first. And ENJOY it. And LOVE yourself - take care of yourself.

This is the only thing that the Universe (God?) wants from you, I think.
[/quote]


Edit: clarification (free => freer)

 

[gotogo]

But all along, all in the All including the All as All is the very same mind. Why do we only experience our mind? This limitation is part of our sets. Meanwhile, the all with the empty set (pure being) will experience us all, as well as every part of each of us.

Strictly speaking, there is only one instance of the All with a given set. For instance, only one me exactly as I am now. The next moment I am at a different point in space/time, and as such this limitation (along with countless others marking the "state" of many things in me), though still equally limiting, has changed, limiting me to a different "place". (the reason I experience time linearly is that all sets that are "me" along "time" in this life share a limitation causing this manner of experience) There might be an infinite variety of "me"s with very slightly differing sets in parallel existences. Still, only one exactly as I am at a specific point of existence.

Hello Csayeursost,
Thank you for sharing the idea/thoughts in the 'Network'. :)
I think I was able to follow the idea and thoughts. In fact, I sometimes go through the similar thoughts as you described especially when trying to understand what 'merging' can mean and so on (I use the term 'localization' rather than 'limitation' though). Have you ever thought about how the 'all' experience itself also? While thinking about this rather strange question, I got a brief grasp of "oh! that is what is actually happening now!"

I don't know if I can explain it well but it may be useful to apply the 'attention' metaphor. When one tries to pay attention to a particular point of one's inner space, let's say a tip of a finger, one's attention 'localized' to the particular point and then experience it. So my understanding using this metaphor is when the 'all' experience itself, each 'localization' is also going through its own experience through 1D to 6D... (can be? )

 

[Helle]

Hi GotoGo

Quote from: Ark
So, I suggest, forget all your "I should", and replace it by "I ALWAYS WANTED...". It may take
a while for you to specify what it is that you "always wanted", but, on the other hand, perhaps you
know it right away.

FORGET "I should", forget it all. Replace it by "I LOVE TO DO ...." and skip completely the TIME issue.

If you need five lives to accomplish what you WANT, let this be the first of those five. And then, without any "time obligation"
or "should stressing" - start it.

First step first. And ENJOY it. And LOVE yourself - take care of yourself.

This is the only thing that the Universe (God?) wants from you, I think.

What an absolutely wonderful quote !

Your post made me very happy, there was some good points there.


I'm slowly working towards my essence, and trying my hardest to apply the knowledge I gain meanwhile.

 

[Psalehesost]

About time to finally respond!

I think we understand the word limitations differently Csayeursost. I sorta get the overall idea of what you're conveying here, there's only one thing I don't agree with, and it could be as I said, due to differences in understanding a word.

I think the issue is rather a difference in the idea of what limitation is applied to. While on a smaller scale limitations also apply to us within the scope of 3D existence, that is only a small part of the idea (GotoGo covered it better and more extensively than I could); most importantly, in this way of thought (that I seek to network), they apply to an instance of the All (in order to yield the limited entity from the whole). I'll try to explain how below:

The All with one set of limitations is me; the All with another set of limitations is you

Why do we have different kinds of limitations in your mind? I don't see Us as having different kinds of limitations, I only see us (us here in 3D STS), as having a different kind of understanding of our mutual limitations.

[...]

You say that our limitations really define us, as individuals, each one of us with a different set of limitations?

Sorry for being so Dense, but HOW do we have different kinds of limitations? :)

If you picture the All as a whole, then each of us is a part of that whole. A different part; as such, you arrive at each of these parts from the whole by differently limiting the whole to yield the part in question.

That said, the general kind of limitation is similar, as we have 3D STS-being in common. A chunk of matter (1D) or a 2D being, or a lizzie (4D STS), or the C's (6D STO) would have much larger differences to their part of the whole, and so in how you limit the whole to yield that part.

[...]

In short: Each of us is the All limited by itself to a different [smaller] part of itself. Differently limited as we are different parts.

For a further analog, picture a circle. Then picture instead a smaller blotch (we'll call it A), then a different smaller blotch (we'll call it B).

In order to go from the whole circle to just blotch A, you have to limit the area of the circle in a certain way. In order to go from the whole circle to just blotch B, you have to limit the area of the circle in a different way. Different because blotches A and B are of slightly varying size, shape and/or placement.

Now, the whole circle exists; so does a number of blotches that are individually smaller but together make up the whole.

In fact, an infinite number of variations of limited blotches that together make up the whole exists.

The circle is the All, and each of those blotches is a finite existence of some density below 7D. The analogy is limited (there goes that word again!) as unlike the circle, the All is of infinite size, and the number of "blotches" (otherwise known as "souls", combinations of souls, or parts of souls - or simply "consciousness" - depending on the context) is likewise infinite.

A soul not limited in its expression of existence by any assumptions whatever would cover the whole "area" of the All, ie. be 7D. A 1D soul, by contrast, is very deeply "hypnotized" or caught up in assumptions, and this limits its expression to the "smallest" size possible.

OSIT.


If this doesn't help with the gap in communication, I think we'll just have to leave it at that.

 

[Helle]

Dear Csayeursost, you're making my brain hurt ;D I like it !

You finally got me with that analog.
Thanks for your patience!

So when our assumptions change, we 'grow'or change in size, still a limited part of the All.( I guess we could also shrink, that depends on the assumptions again?)

 

[Psalehesost]

Perhaps it would further the enquiry to say: You are by identifying with your limitations?
Once you discover that there is a limitation, you expand beyond it, i.e. Knowledge.
This defines the process of growth which is infinite.
Just some thoughts,

Given the depth at which the limitation applies / the assumptions are held, it takes more (the needed experience) than 3D mind-activity to learn and grow beyond it. But the idea that "You are by identifying with your limitations", on a soul level, does hit the nail on the head, to my understanding - so long as you speak of "are" in the sense of being a manifest being, ie. below 7D. It seems there can't be manifest existence without limitation, for without it, there could not be any differentiation within the All.

Or as Chittick explains based on al-Arabi: (which I can now picture and represent to myself more clearly)

If the engendering command alone is considered, there is no imperfection in the cosmos, since all creatures follow what God desires for them. In this respect, what is normally called "imperfection" is in fact perfection, since it allows for the actualization of the various levels of existence and knowledge. In other words, were there no imperfections - in the sense of diminishment, decrease, and lack - there would be no creation. Were there no creation, the Hidden Treasure would remain hidden. Hence Being would be unseen in every respect. There would be no self-disclosure of the Divine Reality, Light would not shine, and God would be the Nonmanifest and not the Manifest. But all this is absurd, since it demands the imperfection of Being Itself, which by definition is nondelimited perfection. Being's perfection requires the manifestation of Its properties. The effects of the Names and Attributes must be displayed for God to be God. [..] In other words, imperfection is demanded by existence itself. To be "other than God" is to be imperfect. [...] But it is precisely the "otherness" which allows the cosmos and all the creatures within it to exist. If the things were perfect in every respect, they would be identical with God Himself, and there would be nothing "other than God." But then we could not even speak about the cosmos, since there would be no cosmos and no speakers. [...]

Something I have been thinking further on since I last posted, following up on the above-written, follows:

Given the attribute of Being of seeking expansion and growth, the evolution through densities, from most-limited to least, follows. Given that All is mind, and that limitation is mental (though on a soul level), it follows that learning becomes the process of growth. The limitations being mental and overcome by learning, they amount to lessons. If then all manifest existence is a result of limitation, it becomes apparent how all is lessons.

(while some days ago I thought it very neat, at this point I'm not sure if what I have communicated in the above paragraph is simply wiseacring, though)

I guess we could also shrink, that depends on the assumptions again?

I've read of two ways of this happening:
* The process that causes soul-smashing.
* What is described in The Wave online chapter 11f (search for "wanderers").