-
Posts
-
Hi all — regarding reflectivity as information sharing service, from the perspective of time-dependent (finite) ascenders, the following snip makes reflectivity seem a bit like celestial FaceBook vs. snail-mail ( 522.3, 46:3.3 ),
(522.3, 46:3.3) “[…], and when Paradise messages are in reception, the entire population is assembled around the sea of glass, and the Uversa friends add the reflectivity phenomena to the technique of the Paradise broadcast so that everything heard becomes visible. […]”
Recall that it takes light 4 years (!) to reach us from the NEAREST star.
Regarding that which reflectivity might be able to reflect, and whether the Trinity perspective of the Ancients of Days allows what we call “potentials” to be observed as actuals, Bradley wrote:
“I don’t know about the reflectivity of the future, but past and present to be sure — and if time or time within eternity also includes something we call the future, then those minds with such dimensionality should also be able to utilize reflectivity to share that with other minds of such dimensionality.”
Thanks Bradley — this is precisely my question: if such perception of transcendental reality is possible, then as descending Trinity-origin persons, our Ancients of Days would likely have access to such information. Which may have been one of those irritations that niggled at Lucifer ( 603.5, 53:3.4 ) :
(603.5, 53:3.4) “Most bitterly did he attack the right of the Ancients of Days — “foreign potentates” — to interfere in the affairs of the local systems and universes. These rulers he denounced as tyrants and usurpers. […]”
If those “foreign potentates” knew the outcome of Lucifer’s little scheme, and had declared it to be off target, then clearly our precocious Lanonandek would have contorted this observation to be fake news, intended to undermine the obvious brilliance of his own little plan; which of course would have shown Michael’s original plan to have been “second rate”, at least when compared with Lucifer’s new improved scheme.
Getting back to the relativity of reflectivity to space and time, George pointed us to the determination by researchers mining the Planck satellite data that the space we can observe appears to be, within our margins for error, “flat“.
George, I’m not sure why you bring up the “flatness of space”; I’m quite happy for the 3-space we can measure to be flat (vs. hyperbolic or ellipsoidal) — however, following Bonita’s lead, I prefer to think of the full, absolutely ultimate bestowal of Paradise to be decidedly elliptical.
So let’s take the next step. George, have you had time to reflect on how your idea of 3-space may accommodate relativistic simultaneity in spacetime? As you know, consensus cosmology no longer addresses a three dimensional Euclidean space, but a smooth four dimensional manifold called “spacetime“. So what’s the problem? Well, in the spacetime of modern cosmology, the 3-dimensional slice any observer defines as “now” is dependent on their motion relative other observers.
It was this simple observation that prompted me to pursue the idea of extra, non-compactified spacelike dimensions along the lines suggested by Lisa Randall. And what I envision is almost in touch with current consensus cosmology. The only real difference is that instead of a multiverse (meaningless infinity of failed universes), I allow for pervaded space to be a well-defined 4-space, with unpervaded space to be a distinct 3-space. George, what you might call “the actual 3-space we can measure”, I propose simply to be that slice of the bestowal of Paradise which we are forced — by the arrow of time — to call “now“.
Hence, if we think of the actual absonite state of the master universe as encompassing the full evolutionary potential and extent of the time-dependent domain, then we can envision our measureable (flat, 3d) “finite” as a 3-brane moving at unit velocity (i.e. “c“) relative to the observation of our local trio of Ancients of Days.
Notice how this simple idea allows us to explain the speed of light, as well as how our 3-space might appear to those transcendental observers not sequestered onto our manifold. Those watching “from behind” might see the result of the finite passing by, while those watching “from in front” may see the constraining pre-conditions awaiting finite activation. Hence their idea of the absonite as allowing transcendental “pre-” and “echo” perspectives.
For those interested in how this fits in with 21st century science, I mention this in passing at this point (time = 4:45) in video 4 part A.
George, regarding the growing archive of Plank 2015 reports, notice that they advise not using the polarization data for angular scales larger than 10 degrees. Too many anomalies appear, so they advise discounting the measurements.
From: “12. Summary and Conclusions“,
“The residual systematics in the Planck 2015 polarization maps have been dramatically reduced compared to 2013, by as much as two orders of magnitude in some cases. Nevertheless, on angular scales greater than 10 degrees, systematic errors in the polarization maps between 100 and 217 GHz are still non-negligible compared to the expected cosmological signal. […]”
Regarding the actual source of this microwave background, I’m sure we both agree that it will NOT turn out to be a red-shifted “surface of last scattering” following an inflation-smoothed Big Bang. But what if it is caused by the leptogenesis managed by master physical controllers within their galactic pools of emergent ultimata? As you can see, if we take UB cosmology even a tiny bit seriously, we find ourselves free to join the intriguing business of helping to fix the foundations of both particle physics and cosmology.
Nigel
Nigel Nunn wrote:
George, I’m not sure why you bring up the “flatness of space”; I’m quite happy for the 3-space we can measure to be flat (vs. hyperbolic or ellipsoidal) — however, following Bonita’s lead, I prefer to think of the full, absolutely ultimate bestowal of Paradise to be decidedly elliptical.
Well, current cosmology is based upon general relativity, and this theory proposes that the geometry of universal spacetime can be described in one of three ways: flat, hyperbolic, or spherical (not ellipsoidal.) In flat spacetime what appears to be a straight line actually is a straight line. In hyperbolic or spherical spacetime, what appears to be a straight line is actually curved (compared to the straight lines of Euclidean space.) The Planck Mission determined that the geometry of the universe appears to be flat to the limit of observability: There is actually a straight line through spacetime from the point of emission for a particular CMB photon to the point of our observation of it, not a curved line. This finding is consistent with the Book’s description of the enduring three-dimensional elliptical form of the master universe, which is why I brought it up. I have already given my thoughts on the absolute three-dimensionality of nonspatial Paradise (pre-space) and the relatively absolute three-dimensionality of midspace.
The above finding from the Planck Mission incorporates the 4-dimensional spacetime – 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time – to which you refer. You allow that the master universe has “a well-defined 4-space,” so I guess we kind of agree on this point. However, your concept of “4-space” differs from mine; I don’t believe the fourth dimension of time can be spatialized.
In both revelation and modern cosmology, three-dimensional space always exists in the now of time.
Without space perception, no creature could fathom the relations of simultaneity. 106:9.2
… 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. 118:3.1
Conceptually, space is a three-dimensional system of associated points apprehended in the now. Time is a succession of such discrete nows, in each of which the totality of three-dimensional space exists. In the speculative (confused) metaphysics of relativistic cosmology, this temporal succession of nows is conceived of as a “space-like dimension”; that is, each now becomes a fixed point on the arrow-like line of time, and all points on this “time-line” exist simultaneously. Stated differently, there is no duration between any of the points on this “time-line”. While this concept appears to unify space and time, it is actually a severe distortion of the nature of time. What this concept of a 4-dimensional manifold attempts to do is replace the moving now of time with a single static unchanging now. This conclusion is directly apparent in Einstein’s well-known conviction that time is an illusion: “…for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one.” “…there is neither evolution nor destiny; only being.”
I find the spatialization of the temporal dimension philosophically untenable and religiously impossible. If time is an illusion and there is only an unchanging now, then every event is predetermined. Both the past and the future would be nothing more than the unrolling of a finished pre-existent reality. There would be no possibility that freewill decision in time – by God or man – could alter the course of future events for either good or evil. The cosmic reality of our reflective moral decisions is completely dependent upon the cosmic reality of time. Without time, moral choice is an illusion.
Hopefully, this clears up why I think that Paradise pre-space (to use Bonita’s phrase) and finite space, as well as the reality levels of space intervening between them, are all three-dimensional in nature and conditioned by different cosmic realizations of time.
I find the spatialization of the temporal dimension philosophically untenable and religiously impossible. If time is an illusion and there is only an unchanging now, then every event is predetermined. Both the past and the future would be nothing more than the unrolling of a finished pre-existent reality. There would be no possibility that freewill decision in time – by God or man – could alter the course of future events for either good or evil. The cosmic reality of our reflective moral decisions is completely dependent upon the cosmic reality of time. Without time, moral choice is an illusion.
This opens up a fantastic philosophical question: Is morality discretion the only purpose of free will? For instance, the very first act of volition does not appear to have had anything to do with morality, but with personality. It was an act which allowed the Father to escape as a personality from the totality of the I AM.
Moral decisions are only necessary within time because time is a gift given to allow imperfection (evil) to become perfected (good). The choice between good and evil is actually a perfecting process which culminates in what TUB calls a perfection of purpose, a full and complete deliverance from the uncertainties of time (26:4.13). In the central universe time is no longer necessary for the purpose of perfecting, yet volition continues to exist. Why? Because of the presence of personality. And it is personality that experiences these dimensions of reality through perfecting levels of reality consciousness.
At some point the personality no longer needs the contrast between good and evil, perfect and imperfect, for decision making. Morality is merely the seedbed for soul birth and early growth. At some point morality, as we understand it, becomes more of an issue of service than of right or wrong, good or evil. The purpose of volition then becomes the mechanism by which personalities actuate the highest potentials of service to others as well as the service of truth, beauty and goodness to the universe . . . God’s will.
G’day all,
Static ethics and traditional morality are just slightly superanimal... Ethics and morals become truly human when they are dynamic and progressive, alive with universe reality. 12:5.10
Interesting ! Ethics and morality can be observed in two differents definitions.
Superanimal. When passive and unprogressive.
Human. When dynamic and progressive.
92:0.2 The adjutant of worship — the appearance in animal consciousness of superanimal potentials for reality perception. This might be termed the primordial human instinct for Deity.
Revealators advice us to paid attention, carefull attention to those 2 differents significations. 99:1.3
The attainment of levels of morality originate as Bonita said in the reason of self-consciousness whom is innate in personnality bestowal. Pre-A/T, pre-spirit of Truth.
Social system without a morality predicated on spiritual realities can no more be maintained than could the solar system without gravity. 195:59
Might explain clearly whats is happening in our civilization’s spiritual stagnation.
André
p.s. “Houston, we have a problem“.
Bonita wrote: Is morality discretion the only purpose of free will? For instance, the very first act of volition does not appear to have had anything to do with morality, but with personality. It was an act which allowed the Father to escape as a personality from the totality of the I AM.
I am confused by the distinction you make here. In one rendition of the origin of reality that employs “the technique of time-space reasoning,” the Father’s “first act of volition” results in the appearance of the spirit personality of the Eternal Son and the material reality of the Isle of Paradise. “Prior” to this eternity event, the personality of the Father was concealed within “the hypothetical stasis of the original infinity of the I AM.” (104:4.47) You appear to suggest that the Father’s freewill choice on the hypothetical reality level of the I AM to “create” the Eternal Son had nothing to do with morality. I’m not sure there is a way to reconcile this with the inherent morality of personality.
Man possesses the lowest type of personality; God, the highest, even supreme, ultimate, and absolute. 1:6.3
9. It (personality) is characterized by morality—awareness of relativity of relationship with other persons. It discerns conduct levels and choosingly discriminates between them. 112:0.11
The Father’s eternal choice to “create” the Eternal Son cannot be anything less than an absolutely good and perfect choice. If it is a good choice, isn’t it also necessarily a moral choice?
You appear to suggest that the Father’s freewill choice on the hypothetical reality level of the I AM to “create” the Eternal Son had nothing to do with morality.
I’m using this quote:
0:3.22 With the appearance of coexistent personal Deity, the Eternal Son and the Infinite Spirit, the Father escaped, as a personality, from otherwise inevitable diffusion throughout the potential of Total Deity. Thenceforth it is only in Trinity association with his two Deity equals that the Father fills all Deity potential, while increasingly experiential Deity is being actualized on the divinity levels of Supremacy, Ultimacy, and Absoluteness.
I’m not sure there is a way to reconcile this with the inherent morality of personality.
It depends on your definition of morality, does’t it? As André pointed out, morality is superanimal, but subspiritual. The Father’s escape from unqualified diffusion of potential by trinitization was not a moral act, otherwise it would be subspiritual, merely the recognition of duty. The Universal Father is not bound by duty, nor does he make decisions based on right or wrong, good or evil. He is right; he is good; he can be no other, do no other. I can’t see where morality has anything to do with it at all. The Father is pre-moral.
196:3.22 Morality is the essential pre-existent soil of personal God-consciousness, the personal realization of the Adjuster’s inner presence, but such morality is not the source of religious experience and the resultant spiritual insight. The moral nature is superanimal but subspiritual. Morality is equivalent to the recognition of duty, the realization of the existence of right and wrong. The moral zone intervenes between the animal and the human types of mind as morontia functions between the material and the spiritual spheres of personality attainment.
Why did the I AM trinitize? I don’t know, but there’s that number three again. And there again is that elliptic symmetry of reality and curvature of all relation concepts. The Trinity is a relationship. The I AM is pre-relationship.
If it is a good choice, isn’t it also necessarily a moral choice?
It’s relative. If truth is relative, so is goodness. When you ARE goodness itself, there’s no need to choose, there’s no relativity to deal with. But that’s God. For humans it’s another story . . . there’s always good, gooder, goodest, more good, more gooder, most good and most goodest and then more.
(193.6) 16:7.7 Man’s choosing between good and evil is influenced, not only by the keenness of his moral nature, but also by such influences as ignorance, immaturity, and delusion. A sense of proportion is also concerned in the exercise of virtue because evil may be perpetrated when the lesser is chosen in the place of the greater as a result of distortion or deception. The art of relative estimation or comparative measurement enters into the practice of the virtues of the moral realm.
What I’m trying to say is that on the level we function we desperately need to perceive the contrast between these levels of perfecting goodness. As we progress in the ascension scheme, the contrasts need no longer be harsh. In fact, they eventually don’t need to be there at all because we begin to focus on choosing attunement with light rather than avoiding darkness. (I think it’s a dimension shift.) This is where the goal becomes focused solely on actuating the Adjuster’s potentials (God’s will). I believe that’s what they mean with this quote:
p1141:5 103:9.7 Faith most willingly carries reason along as far as reason can go and then goes on with wisdom to the full philosophic limit; and then it dares to launch out upon the limitless and never-ending universe journey in the sole company of TRUTH.
The above quote mentions “wisdom to the full philosophic limit.” This is the level of morality which is explained in Paper 16 as the level of duty:
(192.3) 16:6.7 2. Duty — the reality domain of morals in the philosophic realm, the arena of reason, the recognition of relative right and wrong. This is the judicial form of the cosmic discrimination.
I’m not sure what all this has to do with reflectivity though . . . is there a tie in? Was it something about time and reflectivity that brought us to this discussion? Can’t recall.
Bonita wrote:George Park wrote: If it is a good choice, isn’t it also necessarily a moral choice?
It’s relative. If truth is relative, so is goodness. When you ARE goodness itself, there’s no need to choose, there’s no relativity to deal with.
I guess I may see things a little differently. The Father’s choice to “create” the Eternal Son is both absolutely good and absolutely true. Or, rather, I choose to believe this is an absolute truth, even if I cannot prove its absoluteness to others. I agree the Father does not need to choose to be good. Nevertheless, I think God really does choose to do good of his own freewill, because “…the great God is not a helpless slave to his own perfection and infinity. God is not a self-acting automatic force; he is not a slavish law-bound power. God is neither a mathematical equation nor a chemical formula. He is a freewill and primal personality.” 12:7.6
I phrased my point about morality poorly by writing “the inherent morality of personality.” I did not mean any particular morality or even the cosmic morality associated with the Supreme Being. I meant to imply the inherent ability of personality to discriminate between the values of different “conduct levels.”
I guess I may see things a little differently. The Father’s choice to “create” the Eternal Son is both absolutely good and absolutely true. Or, rather, I choose to believe this is an absolute truth, even if I cannot prove its absoluteness to others. I agree the Father does not need to choose to be good. Nevertheless, I think God really does choose to do good of his own freewill, because “…the great God is not a helpless slave to his own perfection and infinity. God is not a self-acting automatic force; he is not a slavish law-bound power. God is neither a mathematical equation nor a chemical formula. He is a freewill and primal personality.” 12:7.6
I don’t disagree with this. What I thought you said in your previous post is that the I AM’s choice to trinitize was a moral choice, and that’s what I have issue with, meaning it needs clarification. As I understand morality, it is not something that applies to existential beings, let alone a pre-existential reality which eventuated into the Trinity.
I meant to imply the inherent ability of personality to discriminate between the values of different “conduct levels.”
Yes, and isn’t this inherent ability of personality relative to the level of functionality? Conduct levels vary according to the cosmic level. In fact, as ascenders we are given a great deal of assistance in learning the new conduct expected of us on each successive level of advancement. The fact that personality is innately sensitive to the responsibility of serving others is a sign of its high origin, wouldn’t you say? Perhaps that first free-will choice of the I AM would be better described as an act of love?
(301.2) 27:4.1 Having already been fully instructed in the ethics of Paradise relationships — neither meaningless formalities nor the dictations of artificial castes but rather the inherent proprieties — the ascendant mortals find it helpful to receive the counsel of the superaphic directors of conduct, who instruct the new members of Paradise society in the usages of the perfect conduct of the high beings who sojourn on the central Isle of Light and Life.
(301.5) 27:4.4 These directors of conduct really serve as glorified teachers and guides. They are chiefly concerned with instructing the new mortal residents regarding the almost endless array of new situations and unfamiliar usages. Notwithstanding all the long preparation therefor and the long journey thereto, Paradise is still inexpressibly strange and unexpectedly new to those who finally attain residential status.
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.