back to space

[Bonita]

emanny3003 wrote:  I simply cannot let this quote in TUB go interpreted in this way.  I certainly never viewed space as a system of associated points nor do I know of of any philosophic treatise by Kant, Newton or Einstein to view space this way.

Here’s the quote again just to make it easier to reference:

118:3.1 Only by ubiquity could Deity unify time-space manifestations to the finite conception, for time is a succession of instants while space is a system of associated points. You do, after all, perceive time by analysis and space by synthesis. You co-ordinate and associate these two dissimilar conceptions by the integrating insight of personality. Of all the animal world only man possesses this time-space perceptibility. To an animal, motion has a meaning, but motion exhibits value only to a creature of personality status.

The author is referring to the finite conception of time-space manifestation and the need for the ubiquitousness of Deity to unify it.  Only personality has the capacity for time-space perception and unification.  The description of space as a system of points is a human perception.  In this instance, a point is simply a unique position in space.  It is merely a framework with which to establish the system of space, a collection of points.  Points are conceptual facts necessary to synthesize the human perception of space, and facts are things.  Space is also necessary for the perception of time relativity since humans recognize time as motion through space. (12:5.1; 12:5.5; 130:7.4)  This is why time and space are linked together for finite beings living in the experiential universes.

[nelsong]

(1169.6) 106:7.7 To finite creatures of the grand universe the concept of the master universe seems to be well-nigh infinite, but doubtless the absonite architects thereof perceive its relatedness to future and unimagined developments within the unending I AM. Even space itself is but an ultimate condition, a condition of qualification within the relative absoluteness of the quiet zones of midspace.

 

Here we are again with another Ultimate link to space ( an Ultimate condition of qualification as well as an Ultimate association) with no mention or connection to time in either – and now that quiet zone of midspace  – where is that in relation to the dead zone?

[emanny3003]

Bonita wrote:

In this instance, a point is simply a unique position in space.  It is merely a framework with which to establish the system of space, a collection of points.  Points are conceptual facts necessary to synthesize the human perception of space, and facts are things.

Space is in continual motion.  What meaning does a “unique position in space” have?  Are you saying that points are facts and facts are things?  If you are saying that points are things in space, my next question is, are points moving with space?  Is there motion inherent in points?

I assume that TUB uses human definitions and concepts whenever possible to convey their meaning.  In 1934, no one had updated the definition of a ‘point’ beyond that which Euclid gave it over 200o years ago.  You can argue that Euclid gave the definition of  a so called ‘non locational’ point as opposed to a coordinate point.  The latter consists of a position on an absolute, unmoving space of the cartesian graph.  But this absolute space is the wrong framework, the wrong background, because TUB says that space is not absolute, it actually moves. Frameworks are rigid structures and cannot refer to space.

I agree that time and space are linked for finite beings to live and we move and have our being in Him.  They are linked because motion is.  But points have no motion.  They have no moving parts.  They represent no motion, even in the human mind.  Space moves in absoluteness with respect to that which is motionless.  Space moves relative to other motions, such as counter revolving space of the concentric space levels.

Our personality gives motion value because we recognize its relation to the Creator.  We integrate time and space because of their relationship.  Einstein knew this as he correctly related space-time and made them perpendicular to one another.  I refer you to the Minkowski’s “light Cone”.  Him and Einstein placed time in the imaginary plane perpendicular to space for the sake of symmetry.  The difference in their conception and what TUB is saying is that while their space is absolute and their time is linear,  TUB says that space is sub absolute and that time in circular.

TUB has made me look at time and space in very different way.  The word ‘ubiquity’ is key to this understanding of the rest of this amazing sentence in 118:3.1.  Deity exists everywhere and at the same time.  A point is also everywhere and at the same time.  A point is undefined in space and time.  A point cannot be a position.  Position is a coordinate.  Besides, positions change in time, points do not.

Time we perceive by breaking it up into segments, a succession of instants.  Instants refer to ‘no time’.  An instant is a point outside of time.  This is analysis performed by insight of personality.  Space we perceive by bring together three separate dimensions into one.  Each of the three dimensions by themselves are but motionless planes. By personality bestowal these planes are given relationship and projection bounds motion in space.  We integrate these  two dissimilar conceptions by the integrating insight of personality and perceive it as motion.  But we can only integrate dissimilar  conceptions because they are relational.  They are at right hands to one another.  Similarly, we can integrate the concept of Father and Son because the Son sits at the right hand of the Father.

 

[Author]

Posts