The need for symbolic thought in an increasingly chaotic world

Stella Marys

Padawan Learner
We live in a world of identity crisis, of not knowing what we want or who we are. A world in which people move through their lives with an inner emptiness and have the belief that it can be filled with meaning with the proposals that are granted by those who do not want them to know themselves. We look for solutions on the outside and don't realize the tools we have on the inside. Symbolic thinking is an essential tool and is not given the place of relevance it deserves. It is of great importance to develop the abstraction of thought since in this way we are able to access transcendent information. Throughout the history of humanity, there are many myths, legends, poetry, stories, music, art, not only speak of aspects external to the human being, they also relate situations that draw the internal landscape of people and are of great help when doing a work of conscience.

The myths (the characteristics of the characters and their actions) make a precise description of our psychic and spiritual world, through symbolic language. Language is captured by the "archetypal" mind. Let's say that all the time symbolic messages are captured by people without them realizing it. The symbol is sometimes used in a destructive way with selfish intentions. All the time we are immersed in symbols. Life itself is a symbol, "As above, so below." But what does the concept of "symbol" really mean?

The Cas say: "Symbols are connectors to information".

The concept of "symbol" is different from the concept of "code" or "sign".

Definition:
"A symbol is a sensitive, non-verbal representation of a complex idea.
The word derives from the Latin term simbŏlum, and this comes from the Greek σύμβολον (symbolon). It is formed from the root sin, which means 'with', 'together' or 'united', and from ballein, which means 'to throw'. Therefore, in an etymological sense a symbol is that which is thrown to unite."
"...do not operate at the logical level but unconscious and subconscious.


Therefore, symbols allow us to mediate between the visible and the invisible, the concrete and the abstract. The symbol also possesses unifying force, that is, it manages to synthesize in a single element different levels of meaning.

Because they facilitate the processes of understanding reality, symbols have an educational and even therapeutic importance... "Significado de Símbolo

"The term code, is common in a wide range of subjects and sectors of everyday life...
It can be a combination of symbols that, within the framework of an established system, has a certain value. "Definición de código — Definicion.de

"...the code is the language in which the transmitter and receiver communicate.1 The transmitter and receiver must use the same code for communication to be possible. Although all other elements of the communication circuit work properly, communication will not be successful if the sender and receiver do not share the same code. "Código (comunicación) - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

Myths are very rich in symbolic language. They serve to develop poetic, abstract thought.
Today I was reading some articles in sott in Spanish about the importance of reading fairy tales to children.

<font color=#38B0DE>-=Lo que nos enseñan los cuentos de hadas y por qué es importante leerlos -- Sott.net Proudly Presents
Underneath something in the article:
"The stories themselves need neither analysis nor explanation. They are not like fables that have an explicit moral so that there is no doubt as to the message to be transmitted. Stories, whether monosemous or polysemous, belong to another kind of transmission of information in which explanation and understanding are part of an intimate process and, most of the time, ignored by the person himself, acting directly on the unconscious. Hence the intensity of its healing power."

There is a program De sott in Spanish: "Rediscovering archetypes for a mature masculinity".

Something from Laura, a quote from La Onda, volume I in which Laura talks about channeling:

"... One of the most surprising aspects was the consistency that could be appreciated in the symbolic or archetypal language of the subconscious. When asked a series of questions, all the subjects, one after the other, coming from all social classes, with a different level of education and intellectual development, followers of different religions and belief systems, responded with the same types of symbols related to similar problems and relationships...".

In conclusion, the symbols are, "Connectors to information" or "in an etymological sense,
a symbol is that which is thrown to unite." It is a "language" that connects us with The Cosmic Mind.:guru:



Texto en español:

Vivimos en un mundo de crisis de identidad, de no saber qué queremos ni quienes somos. Un mundo en el que las personas transitan a lo largo de su vida con un vacío interior y tienen la creencia que puede ser llenado de significado con las propuestas que son otorgadas por los que no quieren que se conozcan a sí mismos. Buscamos soluciones en el exterior y no nos damos cuenta de las herramientas que tenemos en nuestro interior. El pensamiento simbólico es una herramienta esencial y no se le otorga el lugar de relevancia que corresponde. Es de gran importancia desarrollar la abstracción del pensamiento ya que de esta manera somos capaces de acceder a información trascendente. A través de la historia de la humanidad, hay muchos mitos, leyendas, poesía, cuentos,música, arte, no sólo hablan de aspectos exteriores al ser humano, también en ellos se relatan situaciones que dibujan el paisaje interno de las personas y son de gran ayuda a la hora de hacer un trabajo de conciencia.

Los mitos (las características de los personajes y sus acciones) hacen una descripción precisa de nuestro mundo psíquico y espiritual, a través del lenguaje simbólico. El lenguaje es captado por la mente "arquetípica". Digamos que todo el tiempo los mensajes simbólicos son captados por las personas sin que se den cuenta de ello. El símbolo es utilizado a veces de una manera destructiva con intenciones egoístas. Todo el tiempo estamos sumergidos en símbolos. La vida misma es un símbolo, "Como es arriba, es abajo" Pero, ¿qué significa realmente el concepto de "símbolo"?

Los Cas dicen: "los símbolos son conectores a la información"

El concepto de "símbolo" es diferente al concepto de "código" o "signo"

Definición:
"Un símbolo es una representación sensible y no verbal de una idea compleja.
La palabra deriva del término latino simbŏlum, y este proviene del griego σύμβολον (symbolon). Se forma de la raíz sin, que quiere decir ‘con’, ‘junto’ o ‘unido’, y de ballein, que quiere decir ‘lanzar’. Por lo tanto, en un sentido etimológico un símbolo es aquello que se lanza para unir."
"...no operan al nivel lógico sino inconsciente y subconsciente.


Por lo tanto, los símbolos permiten mediar entre lo visible y lo invisible, lo concreto y lo abstracto. El símbolo, además, posee fuerza unificadora, esto es, logra sintetizar en un solo elemento diversos niveles de significación.

Debido a que facilitan los procesos de comprensión de la realidad, los símbolos tienen una importancia educativa y hasta terapéutica..."Significado de Símbolo

"El término código, es común en una amplia gama de materias y sectores de la vida cotidiana...
Puede tratarse de una combinación de símbolos que, en el marco de un sistema ya establecido, cuente con un cierto valor."Definición de código — Definicion.de

"...el código es el lenguaje con que se comunica el emisor y el receptor.1 El emisor y el receptor deben utilizar el mismo código para que la comunicación sea posible. Aunque todos los otros elementos del circuito comunicativo funcionen adecuadamente, la comunicación no tendrá éxito si el emisor y el receptor no comparten el mismo código."Código (comunicación) - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

Los mitos son muy ricos en lenguaje simbólico. Sirven para desarrollar el pensamiento poético, abstracto.
Hoy estuve leyendo unos artículos en sott en español sobre la importancia de leer cuentos de hadas a los niños.

Lo que nos enseñan los cuentos de hadas y por qué es importante leerlos -- Sott.net :
Debajo algo del artículo:
"Los cuentos en sí mismos no necesitan ni análisis ni explicación. No son como las fábulas que tienen una moraleja explícita para que no quede duda alguna de cuál es el mensaje que se quiere transmitir. Los cuentos, ya sean monosémicos o polisémicos, pertenecen a otra clase distinta de transmisión de la información en la cual la explicación y la comprensión forman parte de un proceso íntimo y, en la mayoría de las veces, ignorado por la propia persona, al actuar directamente sobre el inconsciente. De ahí la intensidad de su poder de sanación."

Hay un programa De sott en español: "Redescubriendo los arquetipos para una masculinidad madura"

Algo de Laura , una cita de La Onda, tomo I en la cual Laura habla acerca de la canalización:

"... Uno de los aspectos más sorprendentes era la consistencia que se podía apreciar en el lenguaje simbólico o arquetípico del subconsciente. Cuando se les hacía una serie de preguntas, todos los sujetos, uno tras otro, provenientes de toda clase social, con un nivel de educación y desarrollo intelectual diferente, seguidores de distintas religiones y sistemas de creencias, respondían con los mismos tipos de símbolos relacionados con problemas y relaciones similares..."

En conclusión, Los símbolos son, "Conectores a la información" o "en un sentido etimológico,
un símbolo es aquello que se lanza para unir." Es un "lenguaje" que nos conecta con La Mente Cósmica.
 

Stella Marys

Padawan Learner
"The need for symbolic thought in an increasingly chaotic world" This is the title of the English thread.
I work with several translators and forget to activate the one that corresponds to read in the forum. :flowers:
 

Stella Marys

Padawan Learner
Looking for information about Pythagoras, I found this Spanish author. One of my sisters showed me a video about it and I didn't really like it. I felt disinformation and the one who was leading the talk gave me the impression of being a "charlatan" I searched the forum, but I didn't find it. And as I said at the beginning, looking for Pythagoras I found this person Jaime Buhigas Tallón.

"Jaime Buhigas Tallón is a multifaceted person: he studied Architecture in Madrid and Architectural Design in San Diego (California), Stage Direction and Animation Cinema at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago thanks to a Fulbright scholarship. He is a cartoonist, illustrator, playwright and set designer.

As an adaptor and theatre director he is the founder of the theatre companies "Último Acto" and "Mitá y Mitá Teatro" among others. He has directed the scene for the Royal Chapel of Madrid in the opera "Le Malade Imaginaire", at the Almagro Classical Theatre Festival. Among other musical stage directions we highlight Purcell's "Dido y Eneas", Haendel's "Acis y Galatea" and Banquier's "El Festino". He is the author of the libretto of the opera "Altisidora" with a score by Patricia Mora.

Specialist in the golden section, his lectures on art, the Way of Saint James, the sense of the labyrinth and creativity are very frequent throughout the peninsula. He is the author of the Divina Geometría, an exceptional book, published by Esfera de los Libros. In it he tackles in a pleasant way the search for integrating knowledge, and geometry is the best way to reach this syncretism. "Let no one enter without knowing geometry," it was said on the frontispiece of Plato's Academy. Buhigas scrutinizes reality from the prism of sacred geometry to understand that the order that governs in oneself is identical to that of the universe".

He speaks of many interesting subjects and when he deals with "sacred" geometry, he makes it clear that "sacred" refers to the geometry that was applied for the construction of temples and therefore is associated with the sacred.
Does anyone in the forum have data on "sacred" geometry?

Here's the video I discovered:
(available in Spanish)

I think he's got a lot of interesting facts. Of course I am not in a position to "see" incongruities because I lack information that would allow me to detect them. But before going on searching, I preferred to show the directions I'm going through at the moment. What do you think about all this I just found?


This article has interesting substance and I shared it to continue with the theme of the thread, on the importance of symbolic thinking. Of course it is important to develop it together with the most rational thought, both will lead us to understand about the true creation.
Thank you for reading. Greetings.:flowers::wizard:

Introduction to Overture Mode
The neck of the white swan
I've never understood this poetry. That's why I've been reading and re-reading it for years. And in the same way that the author pursues a form that doesn't find its style, I pursue an understanding that explains to me the enormous attraction that this sonnet generates for me, and I don't find it. I only manage to glimpse a glimpse of all the truth that must be hidden between its lines; I only understand loose verses, vague ideas, explicable similes... The rest are images and sensations nothing else. This poetry offers me a kind of experience. Reading it fascinates me and frustrates me at the same time. It probably fascinates me because it frustrates me. And I identify my sensation with the marvelous final metaphor: a huge white swan neck, which draws an emphatic and conclusive interrogation.

Not to consider a text definitely read, in general, and much less if it is poetic, is the first habit that should be taught in schools. I invite you to read the sonnet again. It won't take long. Or maybe a lot. It's up to you. Go ahead.

I have not wanted this masterpiece by Rubén Darío to be a simple initial quotation, a mere intellectual adornment that accredits before the reader that whoever writes these lines is versed in poetic literature. I am not. I wanted to start with poetry, because I learned a long time ago that only poetic language, putting words to the ineffable, is capable of giving a sort of answer to the great questions that accompany us, have accompanied us and will accompany us, by the fact of being human beings and inhabit the mysterious reality that gives us room. The book that you begin to read wants to be that "impossible embrace to the Venus of Milo", and since its mission is unattainable, the conclusion of everything that I write in these pages will always want to be the same: the neck of the white swan that interrogates us.

Ignorance is the precondition for attaining knowledge, that is, for learning. He who strives to learn is therefore an eternal ignoramus. In this beautiful contradiction lies an important part of the becoming of the human being by existence. Unlike Homo sapiens, birds, insects, plants or microorganisms that share a planet with us seem not to need learning: they already know everything necessary to develop their existence in creation. They come from the factory with everything learned. They just need to synchronize with the right moment of their life cycle for their unlearned skills to manifest: birds make their nests with branches, never having seen another bird of the same species do so. They do not imitate: they know. They carry somewhere secret from an unknown geneticist the refined technique to perform those amazing actions. There are tailor birds that literally sew leaves from trees with their beaks like needles and spider webs like thread, to make their very sophisticated homes. Others make adobe nests following a perfect typology with interior partitions and security measures that prevent the entry of predators. Monarch butterflies travel thousands of kilometers, between Canada and Mexico, twice a year, to reach exactly the same place that saw them leave. And so the migratory cycles of the planet have half a biosphere in transit, connecting in their itineraries the most remote points of the planet in an exercise of disconcerting orientation. Who teaches them? How do they learn? Why do they know? Or are the living beings of creation wise or ignorant?

Imagine this situation: in a closed room with white walls there are four people. They don't seem tormented. On the contrary, each one of them strives to carry out the activity that corresponds to them within the enclosure, an activity that they carry out with pleasure and good craft. In one of the white walls there is a closed door, also white. The attitude towards this door is different in each subject.

The first of them has not even seen it. He is so focused on his chores that he has no time to detect doors in the wall. When he ceases his activity and rests, he is so devoted to his rest that he does not perceive the door either. The door literally does not exist for him.

The second of the individuals has detected the existence of the door. But this does not change his attitude at all. The door simply does not interest him at all, and he continues to fulfill his obligations, which are his priority.

The third individual is more disturbing. He has detected the door, but has no intention of examining it or opening it, because he believes he knows what is behind it. In an exercise of fantasy he has conjectured about what is beyond the white door. He is convinced to death of his hypothesis. Why then open the door?

And finally, there is the fourth individual. He has detected the door and wants to open it. He deeply desires to know what is behind it and abandons his tasks to give himself to this new and attractive cause.

In fact, he does not understand how his three colleagues do not feel the same need as he does, and he encourages them to collaborate in his research. The reaction of others is predictable: the first does not even look at him. The second takes away the importance of the door. The third dissuades him by explaining to him with surprising authority what is behind the door, and making him see how unnecessary his desire is. Of course, the fourth individual mistrusts the speculations of the other and when he insists on opening the door, the third individual alerts him to the dangers of the mission. Such dangers are as fictitious as his version of what the door hides. Moreover, not accepting his fantasy is for the third one a whole grievance on the part of the fourth. If the curious continues to insist, then surely the third individual will resort to some coercive, perhaps violent, method to dissuade him from his purpose. It may even attract resistance from the first and second individuals, since the intention of the fourth delays the execution of the chores that keep the inhabitants of the estancia occupied. But the first three individuals do not know that precisely opening the door has become the only true task of the fourth individual. His desire has inflamed his soul and he knows that, sooner or later, he will discover, alone or in company, the secrets hidden behind the white door.

There is a first order of ignorance, which we shall call the ignorance of the barbarian. It is the ignorance of the one who does not know that he is ignorant. He is like the guy who insists on singing, but has no ear for music. His singing is out of tune, but his ear is so bad that he doesn't even notice it. He sings aloud. He will never learn to sing well. No problem: his objective is not to sing well, it is simply to produce sound, and he does this with complete solvency. The ignorance of the barbarian is peaceful and legitimate. It's not that the ignorant don't know anything. In fact, he knows everything he needs to know in order to fulfill his assigned functions. The ignorance of the barbarian could be interpreted as a form of full wisdom. Perhaps this is precisely the ignorance of animals, of plants, of nature, wise and unconscious at the same time.

Nearby is the second order of ignorance: that of one who is aware of his lack of knowledge, but has no desire to overcome it. It indicates a higher degree of consciousness than the previous one, but the result is the same. It is the ignorance of the affluent: the individual encounters again and again what he does not know, but as he does not need to know, he continues with his tasks. Perhaps knowing something else would change his situation, would generate a movement in his life. But that individual tends to phlegm, and feels good as he is. He doesn't want to be moved from there. The well-to-do ignoramus was an apprentice long ago, in his forgotten youth. He acquired the information and the knowledge he needed to reach his current position, and there he remained, installed, fitted, placed. Perhaps blissful. Who knows.

The third order of ignorance is something more controversial: that of the one who does not know and believes he knows. This ignorance is usually intimately linked to the power and control of others. Its virtue is imagination. Its defect is pride. Its main defense, the fear of the unknown. We will call it ignorance of the fool, the same ignorance that Plato disapproves of in his Apology of Socrates: "This man, on the one hand, believes that he knows something, while he knows nothing". Before the neck of the white swan, this ignorance constructs false answers, and tries to convince everyone of their veracity. There can be two cases in this situation: the ignorant himself creates his lie, in which case we will be faced with the ignorance of the fanatic; or he does not even believe it and yet insists on making it believe, for the benefits that this may bring in terms of power or control over the rest. This would be the ignorance of the perverse. In either case we are faced with sterile ignorance, which breaks the dialectical dynamic of learning and makes it impossible.

Finally, the fourth order will be called ignorance of the curious. His inner monologue says: "I don't know, but I'm aware of it". And even more: "I don't know, but I want to know". The ignorance of the curious produces a desire. Desire moves will, and it moves action. It is an ignorance that does not want to be so, and overcomes itself to transform itself. It is the ignorance of the learner, like those adventurers who suspected that beyond the horizon, beyond the seas and oceans, there were unknown realities, unimaginable landscapes, fantastic animals and perhaps human beings waiting to be discovered. They suspected it and embarked towards the horizon. It is ignorance that makes you open the disturbing white door. The maps produced by the cartographers who arrived in the New World were inconclusive.

For a long time on the boundaries of the map, on the unexplored areas was written the beautiful expression "terra ignota". They did not know those unknown lands, but they went in search, without truce, without rest. On this type of ignorance has been based the evolution of humanity in its way of inhabiting reality.

In order to learn, one must have the desire to do so, and to do so one must first come across a closed door. Once we stand in front of the door and venture to open it, the very complex process of learning begins. An endless number of new data will bombard my senses beyond the threshold of the unknown: landscapes, colors, shapes, flavors, textures, sounds, emotions, contrasts, times, presences ... All this cascade of information penetrates my mind and activates my ability to learn from the new experience.

Broadly speaking, and simplifying to the extreme what psychology strives to scrutinize, offering an unembraceable diversity of theories, we are going to consider that learning, once reality is perceived, is fundamentally based on two pillars: memory and thought. Memorizing is the capacity to assimilate and conserve information. To think is to process information in order to elaborate ideas or concepts with it, which in turn can be reprocessed and associated to conclude new ideas, concepts or thoughts. Since ancient Greece, philosophy speaks to us of a powerful and distinctive tool of the human being, which we call reason. Socrates exalted it as the highest quality of the soul. When thought is guided by reason, it seems that mortals find an impeccable vehicle for attaining knowledge and finding certainty. Plato held that the rational soul empowers us for knowledge and enables us to do good and justice. Aristotle, his disciple, even normalized the processes of reason itself, configuring a whole system of conceptual algorithms; a whole theory of rational thought that he called logic.

Reason guides thought through the paths of logic, and thanks to it, humanity has been able to answer many of the great questions that hovered over the human being and conditioned our subsistence on the planet, especially those linked to the natural world in its physical dimension. Scientific thought has made astonishing achievements for humanity, and has radically changed, thanks to its technical applications, the way man relates to the planet, and therefore man to his fellow man. Applied science quickly becomes a technique, which in turn makes possible new scientific discoveries, which revert to a new technique. And so these two sides of the same coin feed back into a vertiginous and unstoppable ascent. Modernity was born more than five centuries ago in the triumph of reason. The Enlightenment sacralized it. The industrial revolutions, which were actually scientific-technological, led us to the world we know today. The unstoppable technique, in the form of computers and digital information processing, has for decades spoken of artificial intelligence. The fantastic arguments of the science fiction films that admired us as children in the neighbourhood cinema have become reality.

And yet, today, there is no logical system, megacomputer or artificial intelligence capable of explaining Rubén Darío's sonnet. For logic, poetry will always be terra ignota. Whatever we do, whatever technology we use, the neck of the great white swan continues to interrogate reason and it is negligent in the construction of an answer.

Perhaps, having reached the limit of reason, it will be necessary to activate another resource, another mode of thought. I am talking about a non-logical thought: an analogical thought.

An analogy is an existing similarity between different beings or things. Words have the key: if I say that an element A is "equal" to B, I am in a logical proposition: A and B are the same. But if I leave it that A is "like" B, I am in front of an analogical proposition: A and B are not the same, but they have similarities. The analogical proposition obliges us to investigate which are the similarities, the parallelisms, the coincidences of two realities that are considered different. It is the link between the two entities that really interests me, more than the entities themselves. Analogical thinking acts by comparison, never by definition. That is why it always has something imprecise, ambiguous, subjective. It is illogical. And for the current idea of reason (which is by no means the same as that of Plato or Aristotle), it is definitely irrational.

I will give the same example that my professor taught me many years ago in the subject of form analysis in the school of architecture. Let's look at these two forms:


If we are told that one of the forms is called a taquete, and the other is called luova, which is which? The immense majority of people would associate taquete to the drawing of the right, of straight lines and marked angles, and luova to the drawing of the left, sinuous and full of curves. That's how it happened to the students who were in that class, and that's how it happens to the students to whom I've been proposing the game for years. The thought generated by this association is not logical. Of course, if I apply logic, I can find factors that justify the association: when I pronounce the two words, I evoke the spelling of their phonemes, which share common characteristics with the lines of each drawing. The occlusive consonants of taquete, the phonemes T and K, the repetition of the closed E, lead us to identify the sound with the hardest, most abrupt form. The opposite occurs with luova, whose phonemes suggest the curvature of the line. This could explain it. And yet it has not been this mental process that has led us to association. The response has been practically immediate, instinctive, and the most interesting thing: majority. It is certainly not a rule or a law. In fact, there is always some student who establishes the opposite association. Nothing happens. We cannot speak of error. We arrive at association by means of an intuitive certainty that we do not understand but that we nevertheless admit as valid. This is how analogical thinking works.

If logical-rational thinking finds its maximum development in the field of science and technology, analogical thinking does so in the field of poetry and the arts. Metaphor, the pillar of poetic language, is in itself an analogy, a comparison in which I substitute one image for another according to some of its common characteristics: the white swan's neck has the same shape as the question mark. In doing so, I am greatly enriching the meaning of the question mark, because I am endowing it with the infinite spectrum of suggestions brought by the swan: a bird with smooth white plumage, aesthetic, elegant, majestic, evocative of universal legends and myths; the swan takes us to Queen Leda or Knight Lohengrin; it is a snake bird stopped at the moment of its metamorphosis; it is a song to romantic love; the swan redeems the ugly duckling and always sounds like Tchaikovsky... The visual and sonorous image of the swan drags us to a cascade of analogies. By changing a question mark around a swan's neck, I turn a concept into an experience that multiplies the richness of communication to the unimaginable, taking it far beyond the rational world.

In 1981, the American biologist, neuroscientist and psychologist Roger Wolcott Sperry won the Nobel Prize for his work on the functions of the cerebral hemispheres. In very generic terms, Sperry proved in his research that, although they have functionally similar areas of perception, each of the two cerebral hemispheres perceives and processes information in a different way. He realized this as a consequence of severing the link between the two (a kind of large high tension cable called the corpus callosum) in an attempt to palliate the epileptic seizures of some patients. Sperry and his team not only managed to put an end to the epileptic seizures, but also found that individuals subjected to such DIY continued with an apparently normal life and performed the basic functions of their routine without major problems. Seeing is believing. This forged the hypothesis: each hemisphere of the brain acts, in a fairly wide margin, independently of the other. And that opened the way for research into the autonomy of action of the hemispheres. The conclusion was not so much to associate different functions with each hemisphere, but rather to discover that each hemisphere processes information, that is, thinks, in a different way. It seems that the left hemisphere is favorable to logical, verbal, analytical and rational thinking, while the right is prone to analogical, non-verbal, holistic and associative thinking.

Three quarters of a century earlier, in 1907, Rudyard Kipling became the youngest winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature to date (and the first British). Without knowing anything about hemispheres or corpus callosum, he had already written in his poem "The two sides of man":

I owe much to the land in which I grew up.
Even more to the lives that nurtured me.
But above all to Allah, who gave me two different sides in my head.
I reflect much on good and truth in the faiths under the sun.
But above all I think of Allah, who gave me two sides in my head, not one.


I would rather have no shirt or shoes, no friends, no tobacco or bread to lose for a minute the two different sides of my head.

Nothing new under the sun. But in the twentieth century science and reason had been occupying the highest throne of the temple of knowledge for several centuries and had taken command: Sperry's research definitely endorsed for modern man the issue of the bifurcated brain and its two types of thought, no matter how much the artists, poets and philosophers of history, many centuries before Kipling himself, sang it. It doesn't matter: the matter confirms that the same truth can be reached by different and apparently opposite paths.

A duality is always conflictive. As we will have occasion to develop later, duality is eliminated with a return to unity, by virtue of a union of complementary opposites. This means that it is not convenient to give priority to any pole, but to find the way in which both generate a third vision that sublimates and absorbs the others. At the same time, all extremes suffer the strange contradiction of being extraordinarily similar to their opposite, being formally different. In other words: extremes are analogous. It is the mysterious link between the two that undoes the polarity. It is with our harmonized dual thought that we must open the white door, if we are lucky or gifted, to suffer the ignorance of the curious. The terra ignota that awaits us beyond the threshold will need to be explored both of reason and intuition, both of words and of poetic sensations. Our brain is unity. There will be beyond the known questions that will find their answer, categorical, concrete, logical. But there will be many others that can only be answered with intuitions, with metaphors, with poetry.

In its fulgurant development, science solves thousands of questions every day, which demonstrate how our universe works. But the answer to why the universe works that way remains to be found. As José Antonio Marina says, "science describes, but does not explain". The scientific answers do nothing more than place a little further back, but a little larger, at the neck of the white swan that will never stop questioning. It is convenient to be taxativos in this point: the knowledge is born of a question, but always ends with another question even greater. It is our duty, as beings endowed with reason, to bring our understanding of reality as far as reason can reach. But no matter how much the human being discovers, there will always be an unknown land for reason, which can nevertheless be explored by other capacities. Plato would have said by other qualities of the soul. We will not obtain logical answers, but we will obtain living experiences that also contain knowledge. Science accumulates information in its search for truth. Poetry and art invite us to feel their reflections, to smell their essence, to outline their invisible image. Science is paralyzed by mystery. Poetry and art embrace and assimilate it: they never destroy it. Where science observes frustrated, art contemplates blissfully.

The very illustrious doctor Leonid Ponomarev, expert in nuclear physics and member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, writes surprisingly in his book The quantum says:

True science is akin to art, just as true art always includes elements of science. They reflect different and complementary aspects of human experience, and only give us a complete idea of the world when used together. Unfortunately, we do not know the "uncertainty relationship" for the conjugated pair of "science and art" concepts. That is why we cannot assure the degree of harm we suffer because of a one-sided perception of life. (Institute of Physics Publishing, London, 1993, p. 23).

The music of the spheres is itself a poetic expression. To consider that the planets in their eternal cosmic dance produce the most beautiful sonorous harmony is the most beautiful metaphor I know. It is the metaphor of order and beauty in the universe. We owe it first of all to Pythagoras, but also to Pliny, Pliny, Ptolemy, Boethius... And so Marsilio Ficino, Pico della Mirandola, Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton... All of them proposed a musical and aesthetic response to their astronomical observations. All of them scientists; all of them poets.

All the musical proposals to code the music of the spheres have proved, in the long run, erroneous, yet valid when formulated. Let no one be disappointed: all truth, even that reached by rational means, is relative. It has its time and its function, and it is condemned to be discredited and forgotten, on the way to the great truth, which is, of course, unattainable. I will give a resounding example:
Democritus of Abdera, two thousand and five hundred years ago, correctly considered that all matter was formed by tiny particles which he called atoms. Etymologically, "atom" comes from the Greek and means "without division". Democritus believed that those atoms, like tiny solid balls, were the least possible expression of which the physical world was composed. In the microscopic combination of their different types, atoms created the macroscopic bodies that surround us. This idea about the configuration of matter was still valid at the beginning of the 19th century in Dalton's atomic model, with few variations from the Greek philosopher. From then on, what are known as "atomic models" followed one another, and the concept of the atom became more sophisticated. The first failure was to realize that the atom was not indivisible (although I say that in deference to Democritus, no one dared to change the name of the creature). Thomson in 1904 threw down the solid ball and imagined the atom as a lustrous watermelon in which the nuggets are called negatively charged electrons and coexisted embedded in the large positive mass composed of protons. In 1911, Rutherford will observe that Thomson's watermelon was very insufficient, and he chooses to give the atom the shape of a microscopic solar system, with the mass and the positive charge concentrated in a minimum space called nucleus, around which the negatively charged electrons rotate, in the great surrounding crust. Then came Bohr, with its jumping electrons, orbital up and orbital down, and later Sommerfeld, and Schödinger... And the atom becomes more and more divisible, more subatomic and more complicated to understand. Physical matter, as we perceive it, as we touch, smell and tread on it, is not such: what makes up the entrails of all things we no longer know whether they are particles, or waves, or energy, or all or nothing of all that. With quantum field theory the poor atomite becomes an exercise in unprecedented uncertainty and mystery, increasingly difficult to assimilate. We come to read definitions such as "matter is any field, entity or discontinuity translatable into a perceptible phenomenon that propagates through space-time at a speed equal to or lower than that of light and with which energy can be associated", Google dixit, and we are left so speechless. Even in recent times the concept of "antimatter" is on the table, as a fundamental and majority component of the universe, before which the percentage of matter itself is minimal. No matter what they say, that antimatter sounds like poetry in its purest form. What's next? Or better: was Democritus completely false? If Rutherford's or Bohr's models were surpassed, isn't it logical to think that today's sophisticated models will also be in the not-too-distant future? So, what answer should we human beings give when we are asked about something as everyday and proper as matter itself? Do we know something or do we know nothing? The truth is that two thousand and five hundred years later, matter still hangs the "mystery" sign. As conclusive as the solid ball, the great watermelon and the solar minisystem may have seemed in their day, they were nothing more than metaphors. Science or poetry?

The same thing happens with the idea of the music of the spheres. Today we know that in the solar system, in the outer space that its planets pass through, there is no air, so there is no possibility of them producing sound, as we earthlings perceive it. The eagerness of all the great sages of history to write the celestial score is an out-of-date exercise and apparently devoid of logical sense. Anyway, the search for the harmony of the planets was inspired by an intuition, by a subtle perfume of truth, behind the beautiful concept. Whatever its acoustic experience, that impossible music had to be the product of a mathematical equilibrium, of a precise mechanism of proportions, which, like a colossal musical instrument, turned creation into an object of perfect tuning under an exact and perpetual order. The Greeks called it Cosmos. The visual metaphor of the universe as a stringed instrument in perfect tuning can still be rescued from many not so distant treatises. Tracking the music of the spheres is noble work: first because it is unattainable, and second because along the way we will find many of the mathematical secrets of beauty. That is the objective of this work. And when we reach the limit of rational understanding, we will know what we have to do: activate a parallel mode of thought and contemplate. Then the answers, if needed, can only take the form of poetry. Einstein said that the most beautiful experience that humans can have is mystery...

The heavenly melodies that the ancients dreamed of may never be audible. Science has transformed the palpitations of planets into wave frequencies, vibrations, or types of energy. I do not know. Perhaps it is another type of music that awaits us. It doesn't matter. I stop before the impossible: I assume with dignity the seduction of the guardian at the threshold of the unknown: the swan. To contemplate it and delight in its beauty is also a way of penetrating into the abode that it protects. He is also an answer.

—————————————

Author: Jaime Buhigas Tallón
.


Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator
 

Chu

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
"The need for symbolic thought in an increasingly chaotic world" This is the title of the English thread.
I work with several translators and forget to activate the one that corresponds to read in the forum. :flowers:
Title changed as per your request. :-)
 

Stella Marys

Padawan Learner
Thank you very much for the correction of the title! :-D

It is very important to be clear, the title is like a "door". And if the door is not understood, it does not invite to pass and see...

Thank you and greetings to all! :flowers:
 

Debra

Padawan Learner
I had a dream on October 22, 2019.
Upon waking, loud and clear was this following statement, which I wrote down in my Journal.
"The Symbol is the Binder, it pulls information from other Timelines."
I thought of @ark and his cap, or two caps, and wondered, what significance would the "time" that he got his first cap, and the "time' that the other one appeared in, have i common?
It is probably only for him to know, but it seemed relevant to pass on to the Forum.
mirrorrealities.JPG
 

Stella Marys

Padawan Learner
I had a dream on October 22, 2019.
Upon waking, loud and clear was this following statement, which I wrote down in my Journal.
"The Symbol is the Binder, it pulls information from other Timelines."
I thought of @ark and his cap, or two caps, and wondered, what significance would the "time" that he got his first cap, and the "time' that the other one appeared in, have i common?
It is probably only for him to know, but it seemed relevant to pass on to the Forum.
mirrorrealities.JPG
Hello Debra: It's a dream with a lot of symbolic richness. The word symbol comes from the Latin "simbolum" and this from the Greek "synbolon", sign, password.
The word "Encuadernador" caught my attention and so I undertook a search to elucidate some meaning of this dream. I found several interesting texts.

Binder: "The word binding comes from the Latin quaternos with the prefix quaterni of four. Booklet is each sheet that is folded into a cross or into four, to be included in a book. Therefore the binding is the union of booklets by one of their sides and covers like covers." From wikipedia.

Apparently the binding is a complex task, here only a reference, there are many videos that you can find:

And this:
"The symbol in the phenomenology of religion is linked to the rites and myths that constitute the language of the sacred, the symbols are not presented as values of immediate expression but are inscribed in the universe of discourse where they acquire symbolic reality, it is then, by means of language, and concretely of the word, that the cosmic expressiveness of the phenomenology of religion can be expressed. Likewise, in the poetic imagination, which understands the importance of the image as a vehicle or pretext to give verbal force to the expression, language and word are imposed as means to be able to say the symbol. In this sense, we understand that it is through language that the symbol can become real, understanding the possibility of realization not material reality, but expressive reality.

"In the same way, the dreamer in his private dream is closed to everyone, he does not begin to instruct us until he tells us about his dream. Then it is the poet who shows us the birth of the verb as it was buried in the enigmas of the cosmos and the psyche (...) Show the symbol at the moment when poetry puts language in a state of emergency-Ricoeur, P.9".

And this in reference to the book as a form of symbology: http://ve.scielo.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1690-75152008000300008

"...one can say that the book was born from the sheet. Take a sheet and fold it in half: you will get what is called a book. It stands. It opens and closes. The sheet has become volume. Folded thought is not unrolled thought. And it does not occupy the same space or the same time. The fold produces this prodigy of transforming a simple form into a complex form without adding anything to it. The blade goes from single to double, to quadruple and even more if necessary. It acquires the third dimension from a scratch. A single fold on a leaf is enough to organize the space in four pages that open to infinity, like the ring of Moebius. The fold divides the spaces without separating them, at the same time distinct and solidary, of two in two, front-turn, but again face to face or back with back, exterior and convex, interior and concave, two contiguous and two opposite. The fold, although unique, performs a different function depending on the angle from which it is considered. It unites and divides. The book thus helps to think the continuous in discontinuity and discontinuity in continuity. From the fold is born, then, a form of thought, the dialectic, that is articulated to the rhythm of the pages that are leafing through, that are opposed and left behind. We call reading what this space orients. It then acquires a meaning. And when the book is finished, the matter is closed.

The notebook that gathers the folds only has a federalist and unifying role of the different parts and whose content can be incoherent. The notebook allows you to navigate through the book and gives you mobility. It is the mechanical articulation that translates the links of text and thought. The notebook gives life to the book and inscribes it in time and space. The seam that gives life to the book and allows it to move is called the nerve. The nerve makes the booklets supportive and links them to the cover. In this way, the cover plays a fundamental role in the implicit meaning of the book by circumscribing its content to a finite space. There, the book finds its greatest difference with all the new forms of text, which, on the contrary, do not foresee a programmed term, starting with the newspaper, which was invented precisely to escape from the cover, so that the text can overflow the book, which is constantly being sought. This is how databases were built. Thanks to the cover, the book is therefore complete and finished. Everything must be said between the first and last pages. As a result of the cover, the book is, in itself, its own box, and encloses its contents like a secret.

It is not, therefore, the content that distinguishes the book, it is its symbolic form, in the sense that Panofski speaks of perspective as a symbolic form; that is, finally, a way of thinking. In his book Gothic Architecture and Scholastic Thought he invites us, on the other hand, to also examine the book's report in its profound meaning: according to an overall plan that gives the book all its value in front of the performance of the newspaper and the computer, the content of which is never reached, and therefore, it is neither predictable nor dominable. The homogeneous and structured form of the codex therefore serves to bring together heterogeneous elements and to give them unity and stability, even transcendence, as was the case with the great religious corpus. The same happens with the collections of texts, sums, encyclopaedias and composite philosophical works, Pascal's Thoughts or Montaigne's Essays, even heterogeneous treatises such as Brillat-Savarin's The Physiology of Taste, novels such as Don Quixote or Manuscript found in Potocki's Zaragoza, where stories appear as embedded in each other within a book.

Therefore, the codex induces in our thinking and in our behaviour a certain relationship with the truth, with time and the body. The codex is the object of a unique, complete and self-sufficient truth endowed with a title and an authority. It opposes electronic writing that is constantly open to multiple truths, provisional and constantly unfinished. The codex presupposes a linear and measurable time, a beginning and an end, and therefore a unilinear conception of causality. Everything is inscribed in the same chronology, which has led to an over-dimensioning of the notion of History as a universal measure and as an explanation of the world, while the electronic text will make us distance ourselves from history and open us up to a multifactorial conception of causality, a constantly updated conception of history, a consideration of different, yet simultaneous chronologies.

Finally, the book, unlike the computer, is an organic object. We should not underestimate this characteristic in the physical relationship that one can have with the book, intimate and quickly bodily report or even passionate. Made of skin and paper, animal and vegetable, the book not only

appears as an extension of the body or of the word, an object in a certain transitional way, psychologists would even say (especially in the many metaphors that equate it with a living organism), as a secretion of the human body. The book is a combustible, perishable and even edible object. Devouring a book is not just a metaphor; stories and myths abound with situations in which the book is physically absorbed by its readers, starting with the famous passage from the Apocalypse of St. John. The manducation of the book is comparable to the rumination of the sacred text muttered or chanted. The vocabulary of the book reveals, on the other hand, its relationship with the human body. The bookbinders speak of the head, back, body, head and nerves of a book.

Opening a book can be consciously experienced as an intrusion into a living body, in whose skin circulates the material life it contains. In this way, the codex is, for these reasons of corporeality of the support and of individual appropriation and adhesion of the content to this medium, an object capable of transmitting secrets, rather than a computer, which is a place of demonstration where texts and images do nothing more than pass. It is even possible to wonder if, at times, opening a book is not a shameless act. The impudence of an open book is explicit in the Christian iconography of the Book of Life or Book of Conscience. The book of life, where our actions, good and bad, are recorded to allow the balance on the day of our death, exists in several religions, from Greece to Buddhism. This metaphor of the book equated with human life, which, like it, necessarily has a beginning and an end, which only the author knows, gave rise to pictorial representations in manuscripts and medieval porticoes. In the Conques Tympanum there is an angel on the day of Judgment, opening before God the register where human lives are inscribed. In the fifteenth century, when the book began to spread and become a secular object, precisely at that time where the use of accounting books developed, the 'Book of Life' became portable and individual: each individual carries his own book and must open it before God to hear his verdict. A crucial moment in Western thought where individual responsibility is expressed in a personalised object. But what cruelty at this moment when people, completely naked, have yet to discover themselves opening the book, showing themselves more naked, revealing themselves to the world.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau begins his Confessions with the same theme: When the Last Judgment trumpet sounds, I will go with this book in my hand and appear before the sovereign judge. I will say out loud: 'This is what I did, what I thought, what I was."

I also wonder about the constant presence of the book near the Lady of the Annunciation, even though the codex did not yet exist and the Virgin certainly could not read. In general, this book is interpreted as a sign of the realization of the Scriptures and the reminder that the prophets in the Old Testament announce the New. It is also interpreted, more subtly, as a step from the oral to the written, from the Announcement made by the angel Gabriel to the Gospel inscribed for all times. Finally, the presence of this book, almost always open, is interpreted as a rupture in the life of the Virgin, as a breaking point caused by the unexpected intrusion of the archangel in his private life. Nor is this book, more profoundly, an unconscious symbol of virginity, the Virgin fertilized by the word of God turned into writing. The metaphor of the characters considered seeds sown by the author, which rise in furrows on the virgin field of the page (the page as fertile ground, as its name indicates, which also gave rise to country) is common in Christian literature, sometimes enriched by the image of rows of writing ordered as a vineyard from which will come out the wine which is the blood of Christ. I am not sure that the personal computer shares this rich sense with the book. It is difficult for me to imagine Gabriel bursting into the life of the Virgin through the SMS, and I am not sure that we will be able to appear one day in front of some sovereign judge with his laptop.

But let's not forget that the scroll coexisted with the codex four centuries before disappearing, then resurfacing fifteen centuries later on our screens. This is not a technical change, much less a progress whose very notion is dictated to us by the linear progression of the book, but a long mutation of our beliefs linked to our relationships with space, time, bodies and truth.[/
"...one can say that the book was born from the sheet. Take a sheet and fold it in half: you will get what is called a book. It stands. It opens and closes. The sheet has become volume. Folded thought is not unrolled thought. And it does not occupy the same space or the same time. The fold produces this prodigy of transforming a simple form into a complex form without adding anything to it. The blade goes from single to double, to quadruple and even more if necessary. It acquires the third dimension from a scratch. A single fold on a leaf is enough to organize the space in four pages that open to infinity, like the ring of Moebius. The fold divides the spaces without separating them, at the same time distinct and solidary, of two in two, front-turn, but again face to face or back with back, exterior and convex, interior and concave, two contiguous and two opposite. The fold, although unique, performs a different function depending on the angle from which it is considered. It unites and divides. The book thus helps to think the continuous in discontinuity and discontinuity in continuity. From the fold is born, then, a form of thought, the dialectic, that is articulated to the rhythm of the pages that are leafing through, that are opposed and left behind. We call reading what this space orients. It then acquires a meaning. And when the book is finished, the matter is closed.

The notebook that gathers the folds only has a federalist and unifying role of the different parts and whose content can be incoherent. The notebook allows you to navigate through the book and gives you mobility. It is the mechanical articulation that translates the links of text and thought. The notebook gives life to the book and inscribes it in time and space. The seam that gives life to the book and allows it to move is called the nerve. The nerve makes the booklets supportive and links them to the cover. In this way, the cover plays a fundamental role in the implicit meaning of the book by circumscribing its content to a finite space. There, the book finds its greatest difference with all the new forms of text, which, on the contrary, do not foresee a programmed term, starting with the newspaper, which was invented precisely to escape from the cover, so that the text can overflow the book, which is constantly being sought. This is how databases were built. Thanks to the cover, the book is therefore complete and finished. Everything must be said between the first and last pages. As a result of the cover, the book is, in itself, its own box, and encloses its contents like a secret.

It is not, therefore, the content that distinguishes the book, it is its symbolic form, in the sense that Panofski speaks of perspective as a symbolic form; that is, finally, a way of thinking. In his book Gothic Architecture and Scholastic Thought he invites us, on the other hand, to also examine the book's report in its profound meaning: according to an overall plan that gives the book all its value in front of the performance of the newspaper and the computer, the content of which is never reached, and therefore, it is neither predictable nor dominable. The homogeneous and structured form of the codex therefore serves to bring together heterogeneous elements and to give them unity and stability, even transcendence, as was the case with the great religious corpus. The same happens with the collections of texts, sums, encyclopaedias and composite philosophical works, Pascal's Thoughts or Montaigne's Essays, even heterogeneous treatises such as Brillat-Savarin's The Physiology of Taste, novels such as Don Quixote or Manuscript found in Potocki's Zaragoza, where stories appear as embedded in each other within a book.

Therefore, the codex induces in our thinking and in our behaviour a certain relationship with the truth, with time and the body. The codex is the object of a unique, complete and self-sufficient truth endowed with a title and an authority. It opposes electronic writing that is constantly open to multiple truths, provisional and constantly unfinished. The codex presupposes a linear and measurable time, a beginning and an end, and therefore a unilinear conception of causality. Everything is inscribed in the same chronology, which has led to an over-dimensioning of the notion of History as a universal measure and as an explanation of the world, while the electronic text will make us distance ourselves from history and open us up to a multifactorial conception of causality, a constantly updated conception of history, a consideration of different, yet simultaneous chronologies.

Finally, the book, unlike the computer, is an organic object. We should not underestimate this characteristic in the physical relationship that one can have with the book, intimate and quickly bodily report or even passionate. Made of skin and paper, animal and vegetable, the book not only

appears as an extension of the body or of the word, an object in a certain transitional way, psychologists would even say (especially in the many metaphors that equate it with a living organism), as a secretion of the human body. The book is a combustible, perishable and even edible object. Devouring a book is not just a metaphor; stories and myths abound with situations in which the book is physically absorbed by its readers, starting with the famous passage from the Apocalypse of St. John. The manducation of the book is comparable to the rumination of the sacred text muttered or chanted. The vocabulary of the book reveals, on the other hand, its relationship with the human body. The bookbinders speak of the head, back, body, head and nerves of a book.

Opening a book can be consciously experienced as an intrusion into a living body, in whose skin circulates the material life it contains. In this way, the codex is, for these reasons of corporeality of the support and of individual appropriation and adhesion of the content to this medium, an object capable of transmitting secrets, rather than a computer, which is a place of demonstration where texts and images do nothing more than pass. It is even possible to wonder if, at times, opening a book is not a shameless act. The impudence of an open book is explicit in the Christian iconography of the Book of Life or Book of Conscience. The book of life, where our actions, good and bad, are recorded to allow the balance on the day of our death, exists in several religions, from Greece to Buddhism. This metaphor of the book equated with human life, which, like it, necessarily has a beginning and an end, which only the author knows, gave rise to pictorial representations in manuscripts and medieval porticoes. In the Conques Tympanum there is an angel on the day of Judgment, opening before God the register where human lives are inscribed. In the fifteenth century, when the book began to spread and become a secular object, precisely at that time where the use of accounting books developed, the 'Book of Life' became portable and individual: each individual carries his own book and must open it before God to hear his verdict. A crucial moment in Western thought where individual responsibility is expressed in a personalised object. But what cruelty at this moment when people, completely naked, have yet to discover themselves opening the book, showing themselves more naked, revealing themselves to the world.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau begins his Confessions with the same theme: When the Last Judgment trumpet sounds, I will go with this book in my hand and appear before the sovereign judge. I will say out loud: 'This is what I did, what I thought, what I was."

I also wonder about the constant presence of the book near the Lady of the Annunciation, even though the codex did not yet exist and the Virgin certainly could not read. In general, this book is interpreted as a sign of the realization of the Scriptures and the reminder that the prophets in the Old Testament announce the New. It is also interpreted, more subtly, as a step from the oral to the written, from the Announcement made by the angel Gabriel to the Gospel inscribed for all times. Finally, the presence of this book, almost always open, is interpreted as a rupture in the life of the Virgin, as a breaking point caused by the unexpected intrusion of the archangel in his private life. Nor is this book, more profoundly, an unconscious symbol of virginity, the Virgin fertilized by the word of God turned into writing. The metaphor of the characters considered seeds sown by the author, which rise in furrows on the virgin field of the page (the page as fertile ground, as its name indicates, which also gave rise to country) is common in Christian literature, sometimes enriched by the image of rows of writing ordered as a vineyard from which will come out the wine which is the blood of Christ. I am not sure that the personal computer shares this rich sense with the book. It is difficult for me to imagine Gabriel bursting into the life of the Virgin through the SMS, and I am not sure that we will be able to appear one day in front of some sovereign judge with his laptop.

But let's not forget that the scroll coexisted with the codex four centuries before disappearing, then resurfacing fifteen centuries later on our screens. This is not a technical change, much less a progress whose very notion is dictated to us by the linear progression of the book, but a long mutation of our beliefs linked to our relationships with space, time, bodies and truth.
QUOTE]

The word symbol comes from the Latin "simbolum" and this from the Greek "synbolon", sign, password.

Ark's cap is precisely an archetypal manifestation that will surely give for much analysis and seems an invitation to develop symbolic thought in this. There is no closed meaning. It is a transcendent event and I am still thinking about it. I started with the elementary meaning of a cap:

DEFINITION OF
GORRA:

"A cap is an accessory used to protect the head..."

But, I'm afraid, it's a very broad topic to develop right now. It will be for the next chapter...As the Cas say, "It's time to put on the thinking cap." :guru::-D
 

Stella Marys

Padawan Learner
Hello, everybody. I found this thread started by Joe and I think it's important to include it here:

I'm still thinking about symbols and I'm still not sure where I'm going with all this. What is clear is that I still have to analyze the subject of mathematics because, if we are talking about symbols, the level of abstraction that is handled with them is very high and they say that mathematics is the Universal language.

I heard, or more precisely I would say I read, that music is the sound of mathematics. For this reason I investigated Pythagoras. Pythagoreans speak that everything is "number" and they spoke of the "music of the spheres", "geometry" was also of importance.
And when it comes to geometry, I remember Laura talking to the Cas about the "circles" of the harvests, they talked about information they contained for humanity and referred to it as a planetary "Reiky.

If anyone remembers this information I would like to return to it for review. I don't know where it is. I think Laura was talking about Reiky and how the symbols healed at the soul level. And it was concluded that those "circles" were like a Reiky to the planet. I have only noted the name of one symbol that the Cas revealed to Laura. It is called "Onnh tu shayti sunehn" (they did not show the form this name has on the transcript).

This inscription goes into the heart chakra 4 times a day for those who are prepared to receive more advanced and intuitive lessons and knowledge and warned to use with caution. In this session Laura asked about how symbols have power and the Cas responded that they are connectors to information.

I'm sorry that I didn't take into account the dates of some of the sessions, it's something that I now apply in order to work better. I've learned it!

And another session that caught my attention was one in which they talked about Stonehenge that was something like an energy transducer. The Cas made reference that there were "telepathically received communications coded in codes so as not to have to look in the field for coded pictographs".
And they also said, this is very important: "The spiral serves to translate the message by slowing down the wave and focusing the energy of thought-wave transfer.
It uses/transduce electromagnetic waves, the conduit, when decomposing the signal of the language of universal intention, in a language of phonetic profile. This is for the need of multiple users."
wow!

When asked by Laura (I think they were talking about something like a "tonal stream") the Cas emphatically replied: "No, sound, Laura, sound!" they referred to seeing Leedskallen.

The word is composed of Leed and skallen.
I searched and found this: LEED - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

Leed:Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design)
"It consists of a set of rules on the use of sustainability strategies in buildings of all kinds. It is based on the incorporation into the project of aspects related to energy efficiency, the use of alternative energies, the improvement of indoor environmental quality, the efficiency of water consumption, the sustainable development of open spaces in the plot and the selection of materials.

Well, for me, it's obviously an analogy.

And Norwegian skallen is skull or a "bone box".

Apparently in order to be a receiver of "universal intention signals" we have to "adjust" our "resonance box".:-D

For now this is still a "sketch"... Greetings!:flowers:
 

Curious Beagle

The Force is Strong With This One
Symbolism is used mostly to avoid vibration mismatch. When one is sending a message but the receiver isn't ready for the knowledge they tend to get aggressive or judgmental. Receiver will twist the message to fit their world view/ ego. Underdeveloped soul tend to think they are perfect/always right and everybody else is wrong. If someone challenge their world view their whole world will crumble so they tend to be aggressive in defending it. That is why teacher often describe things in symbolism since people who understand it will see through the symbolism those who don't will just recite fancy words without understanding the concept/meaning behind it.
 

Stella Marys

Padawan Learner

I found this thread interesting for the topic in question. In short, everything points to the need to do the "work". And as we clean our "machine" we become better information decoders. Your publication is very appreciated, it helped me to clarify my thoughts. Thank you and greetings! :wizard:
 

Stella Marys

Padawan Learner

What a joy, I found the session I mentioned in the previous post and I didn't know its date! Actually my search was about crystals, but "she" appeared!

Well , the truth is that I am thinking about how to make an application for a crystal , since I do not handle credit cards . Is there any way to get the money through other means?:huh: I'm talking about how to make money transfers through international payment networks.

The question remains open and I appreciate the guidance you can provide on this issue. Greetings and thank you! :flowers:

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
 

Stella Marys

Padawan Learner
Below I describe the use of the symbols in a negative way. Those who have an SAS profile, take symbols and use them for selfish purposes, to obtain them requires a SAO profile (this conclusion may be wrong based on the data analyzed so far). Once these symbols are obtained it is necessary to avoid that they are used in a corrupt way (as is the case of inverted Reiki symbols).

I was researching on this subject and in sott.net Spanish I found several articles that talk about many pop music artists who use symbols to capture energy or to implement programming at the subconscious level in people's minds:




We are constantly exposed to subliminal messages and need to be aware of this reality. How far are we able to handle this? If knowledge protects, do we somehow become impervious to the absorption of these messages? I consider essential the study of the three minds we have, i.e. conscious, subconscious and unconscious activity...

The CAS say:

"Emotions = include compulsive cravings
Instincts=hearts of psychic nature that come from within, are stronger.
When it comes to compulsive cravings, there is always a leak of psychic instincts that you can access if you use reason and examine the lessons of the past.
Instincts - different - emotions
Subconscious= Soul= True self"

And this:

"The unconscious mind is also a channel of communication with one's higher self, with other beings, and with the universal mind."

As we work with our programs "cleaning our machine," this results in choosing what is convenient for ourselves and our development. For example, if we know that a Madonna recital involves a load of satanic symbols, we do not consume her music and we will not attend her concerts.

So here applies the "knowledge protects". Knowledge sets in motion an action that brings me protection. My action lies in moving away from what is harmful, since the human mind is extremely vulnerable to absorption at the subconscious level. I do not expose myself, because I know my limitations and do not feel invulnerable or "impermeable" to such messages.

In Gurdjieff's book: "Stories of Beelzebub to his grandson", he permanently refers to "three-brained beings" and their nature. Here is a brief chapter that explains human behavior precisely:

Chapter 11
A biting trait of the peculiar psyche of contemporary man.
But now let us return to the three-brained beings that inhabit planet Earth, since they are
the ones you've been most interested in, deserving you to call them "drones."
For now, I will hasten to show you how glad I am that you are at a great loss.
distance from those three-centered beings whom you dared to call by such an "insulting" name.
for their dignity", and I also welcome the fact that it is highly unlikely that they will ever learn about
that sometime.
Do you know, by chance, you, just a child; you, little "nobody" still unaware of you
the same, what they would have done to you, especially contemporary beings, if they had
heard what you said about them? What they would've done to you if you'd been with them and they would've come back.
could have captured you? The mere fact of thinking about it fills me with horror.
In the best of cases you would have been given such a spanking, that, as our Mullah Nassr says
Eddin, "you wouldn't have regained your senses before the first birch harvest."
In any case, I suggest that on any occasion that you undertake something new you should bless
always to Destiny and beg Him to be merciful to you and always to give you
protect, preventing the beings of planet Earth from ever suspecting that you, my beloved and only grandson, dared to call them "drones".
You will know that during the time that my observations from planet Mars took place,
as well as in the periods in which I lived among them, I had occasion to study the psyche of these
strange three-brained beings in extremely complete form, so that I know perfectly well what I am talking about.
that they would do with anyone who dared to give them such a nickname.
Of course, it was only out of childish naivety that you called them that; but the beings
that inhabit that peculiar planet, especially the contemporary ones, are not the
discriminate those little subtleties.
Who insulted them, why, and in what circumstances is all the same to them. They have been given
a name they consider insulting and that's enough.
Discrimination in such matters is simply equivalent, according to what the great
most of them understand (to put it in their own words), to "waste time".
Be that as it may, in any case you hastened a little, by giving such an offensive name to beings.
In the first place, because you made me fear for you,
and secondly, because you have earned a permanent threat to the future.
The question is this: despite the fact that, as I have already said, you are at a great distance from them and, therefore
so, they can't take over you to punish you personally, it could well happen that of
some unforeseen form came to know, even from the twentieth hand, that you had insulted them.
and then you could be sure of a true "anathema" on their part, and the magnitude of
this anathema would have to depend, without a doubt, on the interests that were right to occupy them in that
at any given time.
Maybe it's worth trying to show you how the people on the planet would have behaved.
if they'd known the insult you'd made them object to. This description will be a
excellent example to help you understand the strange character of the psyche of these beings
tricerebrates that have aroused your interest.
Irritated by the incident, that is, by the unthinkable insult that you had made them victims, and
if no equally absurd interest had preoccupied them at the time, surely
would have decided to carry out, in a place chosen beforehand, with invited individuals of
beforehand, all of them dressed, of course, in suits specially designed for such
occasions, what is called a "solemn council".
First of all, they would have chosen for this "solemn council" an individual from among them,
called "president," in charge of directing the "trial."
To begin with, they would have "torn you apart", as they say there, and not only you but also
your father, your grandfather and the rest of your ascendants, without stopping until Adam.
If they had decided then - as always, of course, by a majority of
you were guilty, you would have been sanctioned in accordance with the provisions contained in the
a Code of laws, based on similar previous "pantomimes", carried out by human beings.
called "old fossils."
But if it were to happen that, by majority vote, they would not find anything criminal in your
attitude -although this only rarely happens between them- then all this "judgment"
written down and signed by the entire council, it would be a good idea to have a
dispatched... Perhaps you believe that to the basket of papers? Well, no! far from it, it would be sent
immediately to the relevant experts; in this case, to what is called a "Holy Synod".
where the same procedure would have to be repeated, only now you'd be tried for
important" individuals on the planet.

At the end of this true "waste of time" they would have to arrive at the main point, that is, that
the defendant is out of your reach.
But it is precisely at this point that the main danger to your person would arise; for
when they knew for sure they couldn't take you, they'd have to decide.
unanimously no more and no less than, as I said, "anathematize you".
And do you know what that means and how it is done?
-No!
-Then listen and tremble.
The most "important" individuals would decree that all the other beings, in the world.
establishments intended for that purpose, such as so-called "churches",
The ceremonies carried out by certain groups of people, such as "chapels", "synagogues", "municipalities", etc., were attended.
special officials who would wish you in thought something like this:
That you should lose your horns, that your hair should turn grey prematurely, or that the food
contained in your stomach become coffin nails, or that the tongue of your future
woman will triple her size, or that, whenever you're right to take a bite of your cake
to immediately become "soap", and so on indefinitely.
Do you now understand the dangers to which you were exposed when you called these "drones"?
remote engenders? Concluding his speech in this way, Beelzebub dedicated a loving smile to his
favorite grandson.
I will just add that the majority of the population on this planet is in a vulnerable state of mind to be constantly programmed, know how to do it and handle the masses as they please. They are under hypnosis.

Gurdjieff says: "Hypnosis is a dream state caused by sowed concepts.
The family is the first programmer, then it will be society and external life.
Every day people perfect their mechanical acts. Today people are not born... they are cultivated and maquila".

Julius Caesar was clear about this: "I was wrong to think that I could change the masses by example. Humans are mostly fickle and self-centered. Therefore, if you really want to make changes, you can only do it through early education, and even then it is fragile and will not last. If you do, you can make a difference after you're gone."

In conclusion, it is extremely important to know how the human mind works. And this is only possible if a work of consciousness is carried out. That is the reason for the third density because this is the density of the "consciousness of self". This is our task and not everyone is prepared to begin that "journey into the inner self." We can only leave "footprints" for someone to eventually follow the path if they decide to undertake the search. We have to respect people's free will. Greetings :flowers:

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
 
Top Bottom