Tree Of Life?

Roland JP said:
Being lost in illusion is a trap and you are.
I wouldn't be on this forum nor posting articles from sott.net. I would be very much in the world.

Nope. If you read the recent books recommended in the psychology threads, you'll see that things aren't so simple, especially when it comes to our ability (or lack thereof) to see ourselves. It's entirely possible to read sott, participate on this forum, and be interested in all sorts of esoteric concepts, and still be completely trapped in illusion. Because the biggest illusions, and the biggest lies we tell ourselves, are the ones about ourselves: that we are free, conscious, aware, in charge of our own thinking, beliefs, and actions. We're not, and this is what's being pointed out to you. As Daniel Kahneman points out, System 2 (our 'conscious' mind) is very lazy and prone to answer questions with the first 'intuition' that comes to mind, without really checking and validating. It will often 'answer' the wrong question to begin with, choosing a simpler one in order to avoid the real heart of the matter. Your entanglement post seemed to me to be something like this: a lot of speculation, trusting your own 'impressions', with very little actual critical thought. And answering questions that really don't matter to your own development. Solution? Others are much better at seeing our own problems, and where we are taking a wrong turn, than we are.

Not only do you think that just because something crosses your mind, it is worthy of starting a new thread to show drawings about it (with no explanation), but you also never question the validity of your own thinking.

I do question it and make changes before I present it. And explanations are in it. Never? You must be inside my head all the time.

Problem is, YOU aren't in your head at all time. That's the illusion. Never forget how easy and habitual lying to the self really is...
 
Roland JP said:
Not only do you think that just because something crosses your mind, it is worthy of starting a new thread to show drawings about it (with no explanation), but you also never question the validity of your own thinking.

I do question it and make changes before I present it. And explanations are in it. Never? You must be inside my head all the time.

Really ? You must be kidding. It is incomprehensible, or I just may be totally dumb.

The others are not in your head.
 
Hi Roland,

As Daniel Kahneman points out, System 2 (our 'conscious' mind) is very lazy and prone to answer questions with the first 'intuition' that comes to mind, without really checking and validating. It will often 'answer' the wrong question to begin with, choosing a simpler one in order to avoid the real heart of the matter. Your entanglement post seemed to me to be something like this: a lot of speculation, trusting your own 'impressions', with very little actual critical thought.

This is the heart of the matter I think. I have experienced this previously where my actual questions should be:

Do I know what I am about to say is factual?
Did I have done enough research to better judge my ideas, or did I just freely associate with the first thing that came to my mind?
Will this subject bring me closer to the truth about my mechanicalness or not?

As AI points out, these are the questions that should be answered by System 2 which is the ciritical mind and deals with judgement, doubt, questions. But it is lazy, so System 1, unconscious thought takes over and instead of dealing with all these hard questions asks a simple one:

What do I feel about my ideas right now?

And you feel great that you have discovered something, you felt you made a connection, you are important, you are capable, you are clever etc. By answering like this, you convinced yourself you are right, or you should share this idea with others because it is significant. You have never stopped and questioned your thinking. You have never answered the hard questions above, and you have never said: "Is it my System 1 talking to me which is unable to critically think and only believes what it sees to create an order, a coherent image of the things I am seeing right now."

If you could have asked the last question, or the initial three and answered them honestly in yourself, then you would have questioned your own thinking.

I hope this helps.
 
Roland JP said:
I saw an example of this Quantum Entanglement in my head while on FB and used this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7rk7-CB_c4&feature=related to put what was in my head on paper.

Quantum mechanics has been the source of a tremendous amount of 'wiseacring'. This has been mainly from the new-age folks but it seems that the implications of the "weirdness" involved, along with inadequate or incorrect descriptions of quantum phenomena have lead a good portion of the public to join in the wiseacring. If you want to learn quantum mechanics you need to start with math, and a lot of it.

A quick google search gave me this link: _http://www.cobalt.chem.ucalgary.ca/ziegler/educmat/chm386/rudiment/mathbas/mathbas.htm

This link is by no means an extensive review of the topics, and if you want to actually learn the material you will need to look elsewhere. However, looking through the topics listed will give you an idea of the extent of mathematical aptitude that is needed to formulate what is taking place in quantum mechanics.

Roland JP said:
Roland I have a question, and maybe I'm wrong, but you may be trying to draw attention to your personal ideas without you realizing it you?

attention? No. I said before these flashes and images past before me and I try my best to put it on paper.
The thing is there are people who see things in an unusasal way and sometimes can make remarkable discoveries in the process or slightly different angle on something given inspiration or idea in others to create. Not just a strict diet of thinking patterns. I see example in rare dreams or while I'm awake and I articulate them on paper the best way I can and so I share it. If this is what I must stop doing to respect this forum's aim than I can do that.

I'm not intending to discourage you, but I can almost guarantee that without the mathematical backing, you will make no remarkable discovery relating to quantum mechanics. Thus it is just wiseacring.

edit: I looked at the youtube video you linked to and clicked to a random spot in the 9:26 long video. I picked 5:34, and by 6:15 I had already noticed an error in the information presented in the video. In general, youtube videos will not be enough to teach you about this stuff. This is evidence of the inadequate and incorrect descriptions I mentioned earlier. If you want to watch videos for an introduction to these topics, I suggest the lectures by Richard Feynman.
 
Roland JP said:
It's actually more about helping yourself, Roland, than respecting the forum's aim. Being lost in illusion is a trap and you are. Not only do you think that just because something crosses your mind, it is worthy of starting a new thread to show drawings about it (with no explanation), but you also never question the validity of your own thinking.


It's actually more about helping yourself, Roland, than respecting the forum's aim

Explain your reasoning behind this? It sounds like an opinion.

Hi Roland. You sound a bit annoyed by anart's response, but let me tell you that she was simply trying to warn you about a mental trap you seem to be falling into. She was trying to help you and you reacted as if she was doing the opposite.

I don't know if there is any merit in your drawings and speculations about quantum particles. To be honest, I doubt it - unless you have a degree in physics and you actually understand what you are saying, in which case you would have been able to explain it to us rationally and coherently.

But the point is that it is quite clear that you are not critical at all towards your own thinking, and that is the danger. You say you have flashes and images, and perhaps you feel this makes you special. But many of us have similar visions of one sort or another, or ideas, synchronicities or whatever, and we would be making a big mistake if we just took them for granted. Sometimes I have very vivid dreams that leave me with the impression they mean something or other, but repeatedly I have found that I was mistaken or that the information could not be verified. So I try to maintain a healthy measure of skepticism. If I believed every apparent revelation that comes to my mind, I think I would be crossing the line of insanity.

Remember the essence of the Cassiopaean experiment. It is about being critical, doing research and questioning everything, including ourselves.
 
WK is absolutely right. One thing is arising some inspiration or intuition, but that's not all because of a lack of perspiration. Research, objectivity, discernment, etc.. It is necessary to supplement it. This is what differentiates Cassiopaea Experiment of others, and perspiration after the inspiration. In these cases we should all act alike,

OSIT.
 
Windmill knight said:
I don't know if there is any merit in your drawings and speculations about quantum particles... But the point is that it is quite clear that you are not critical at all towards your own thinking, and that is the danger. You say you have flashes and images, and perhaps you feel this makes you special. But many of us have similar visions of one sort or another, or ideas, synchronicities or whatever... If I believed every apparent revelation that comes to my mind, I think I would be crossing the line of insanity.

Yeah I had a dream of 9-11 before 9-11 and oddly enough I can use math (bivectors) for both physics and the Tree of Life (and Jung/Enneagram personality models) and though those areas got me here and haven't been a problem that doesn't mean I don't have problems that point me towards nuthood. Gang Stalking, Synchronicity, understanding women, etc. are all ideas threatening to derail me. Even if I had a nice plan before this incarnation, even most "heroes" fail as Laura has mentioned. It's the horror of our situation. I'm just hoping to avoid getting my soul crushed.

For physics I would suggest that Roland think less about waves and more about paths (Feynman paths) and the idea of "wave" becomes more probabilities for the paths. Entanglement/Superposition/Coherence becomes more particle paths going to the same parallel universe ("world" of the many worlds) which kind of restricts their individual freedom.
 
Ok I’ll work on being more critical of myself. Appreciate the information and help guys! I think I need to focus more on the recommended reading more and less of the sott articles maybe.
 
Roland JP:

'Only 2 atoms can occupy each shell in an atom'

Can you say where you got this information from?

Thanks, Eúnan
 
Sorry, I can't edit the above. The quote is:

'Only 2 electrons can occupy each shell in an atom'.

The question is still can you say where you got this information from?

Thanks

Eúnan
 
That was my mistake: not Atoms but two electrons can occupy two shells of an Atom. But its in the video in the link I provided pt3 at 8:53
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGPX3v4du_c&feature=related
 
Roland JP said:
That was my mistake: not Atoms but two electrons can occupy two shells of an Atom. But its in the video in the link I provided pt3 at 8:53
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGPX3v4du_c&feature=related

There's a problem with that RolandJP - its not right. The only shell that's limited to two electrons is the first one (the K shell). For instance, the second shell (the L shell) can hold up to eight electons, and the farther out the orbits go the number of electrons each shell can hold increases.

You've said that there are people who see things in an unusual way and that often remarkable discoveries can be made as a result. The people who make remarkable discoveries, however, first normally have a good grounding in the basics. It seems that your way of seeing quantum entanglement is indeed unusual as its based on only 2 electrons being able to occupy an orbital shell. Maybe have a look at Sommerfeld's work on extending Bohr's model of the atom.

I'm very interested in the motivation behind your work on this. Its not unusual for people to have flashes of inspiration that lead to a new scientific theory but normlly they're folk who work in the area. Are you a physicist? Or are you hoping that your flash of inspiration will just come to you with no prior work in the field? Does it work like that if you're fourth way practitioner?
 
ec1968 said:
Its not unusual for people to have flashes of inspiration that lead to a new scientific theory but normlly they're folk who work in the area. Are you a physicist? Or are you hoping that your flash of inspiration will just come to you with no prior work in the field? Does it work like that if you're fourth way practitioner?

No, it doesn't work that way in Fourth Way. Generally, an individual is expected to have some success in ordinary life in the path that interests them.

"How can we recognize people who are able to come to the work?" asked one of those present.

"How to recognize them is another question," said G. "To do this it is necessary to a certain extent 'to be.' But before speaking of this we must establish what kind of people are able to come to the work and what kind are not able.

"You must understand that a man should have, first, a certain preparation, certain luggage. He should know what it is possible to know through ordinary channels about the ideas of esotericism, about hidden knowledge, about possibilities of the inner evolution of man, and so on. What I mean is that these ideas ought not to appear to him as something entirely new. Otherwise it is difficult to speak to him. It is useful also if he has at least some scientific or philosophical preparation. If a man has a good knowledge of religion, this can also be useful. But if he is tied to religious forms and has no understanding of their essence, he will find it very difficult. In general, if a man knows but little, has read but little, has thought but little, it is difficult to talk to him. If he has a good essence there is another way for him without any talks at all, but in this case he has to be obedient, he has to give up his will. And he has to come to this also in some way or other.

"It can be said that there is one general rule for everybody. In order to approach this system seriously, people must be disappointed, first of all in themselves, that is to say, in their powers, and secondly in all the old ways. A man cannot feel what is most valuable in the system unless he is disappointed in what he has been doing, disappointed in what he has been searching for.

"If he is a scientist he should be disappointed in his science. If he is a religious man he should be disappointed in his religion. If he is a politician he should be disappointed in politics. If he is a philosopher he should be disappointed in philosophy. If he is a theosophist he should be disappointed in theosophy. If he is an occultist he should be disappointed in occultism. And so on.

"But you must understand what this means I say for instance that a religious man should be disappointed in religion This does not mean that he should lose his faith. On the contrary, it means being 'disappointed' in the teaching and the methods only, realizing that the religious teaching he knows is not enough for him, can lead him nowhere. All religious teachings, excepting of course the completely degenerated religions of savages and the invented religions and sects of modern times, consist of two parts, the visible and the hidden. To be disappointed in religion means being disappointed in the visible, and to feel the necessity for finding the hidden and unknown part of religion.

"To be disappointed in science does not mean losing interest in knowledge. It means being convinced that the usual scientific methods are not only useless but lead to the construction of absurd and self contradictory theories, and, having become convinced of this, to begin to search for others.

"To be disappointed in philosophy means being convinced that ordinary philosophy is merely — as it is said in the Russian proverb—pouring from one empty vessel into another, and that people do not even know what philosophy means although true philosophy also can and should exist.

"To be disappointed in occultism does not mean losing faith in the miraculous, it is merely being convinced that ordinary, accessible, and even advertised occultism, under whatever name it may pass, is simply charlatanism and self deception and that, although somewhere something does exist, everything that man knows or is able to learn in the ordinary way is not what he needs.

"So that, no matter what he used to do before, no matter what used to interest him, if a man has arrived at this state of disappointment in ways that are possible and accessible, it is worth while speaking to him about our system and then he may come to the work.

"But if he continues to think that he is able to find anything on his former way, or that he has not as yet tried all the ways, or that he can, by himself, find anything or do anything, it means that he is not ready.

"I do not mean that he must throw up everything he used to do before This is entirely unnecessary On the contrary, it is often even better if he continues to do what he used to do. But he must realize that it is only a profession, or a habit, or a necessity.. In this case it is another matter, he will then be able not to identify'.

"There is only one thing incompatible with work and that is 'professional occultism,' in other words, professional charlatanism All these spiritualists, healers, clairvoyants, and so on, or even people closely connected with them, are none of them any good to us. And you must always remember this and take care not to tell them much because everything they learn from you they might use for their own purposes, that is, to make fools of other people.
 
Laura said:
ec1968 said:
Its not unusual for people to have flashes of inspiration that lead to a new scientific theory but normlly they're folk who work in the area. Are you a physicist? Or are you hoping that your flash of inspiration will just come to you with no prior work in the field? Does it work like that if you're fourth way practitioner?

No, it doesn't work that way in Fourth Way. Generally, an individual is expected to have some success in ordinary life in the path that interests them.

Thanks Laura. I was hoping that Roland JP might recognise my question as rhetorical and that that might prompt him to tell us his motivation in trying to explain quantum entanglement (from an erronous starting point). I've always struggled with the maths of quantum physics and I can't understand why someone, unless they have a background in the subject, would play at it and then post their doodles on this forum. Am I supposed to be impressed?
 
Hi Roland.

If it helps to understand how "must stop doing" can be "about helping yourself" because otherwise "This is self-referencing", then maybe you could look at it this way:

In the original post, you matched up an image you saw at one place with an image you saw at another and saw some similarities and wrote them down. In the "entanglement" post, you matched up an image you saw in your head with a specific video, saw some similarities, and also wrote it down. So, there seems to be patterns in the images and patterns in your reactions towards them.

What I noticed is that you're doing very little of the left-brain differentiation work which might allow you to exploit any consistencies in these patterns you see in order to connect them with some problem you're trying to solve or an Aim to be served. That might break you out of the circularity. Without grounding everything to your own objective experience in life with some overall purpose to be served, why would you want to expend so much energy on what are to you, essentially "floating abstractions"?

After 3000 plus posts, I'm still learning this, so I'd be interested in your overall aim. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom