Hotaka

Has anyone heard of J.G. Bennett and his qualitative approach to numbers? He is the founder of systematics, something I found in a book on a bookshelf in a second-hand store, which is the study of numbers as qualitative entities. Numbers can be used to study systems and each system of terms (depends how many there are in the number) has unique characteristics as a whole and to the relationship between different terms each unique in their own way within the system, which is self existing of course. So this can be used as a spiritual practice to break down or rebuild yourself, and it can also be a tool or system or framework to see the world more clearly, almost scientifically, but based on perception and knowledge inside intuition. This differs considerably to a scientific approach with no analogous abstractions of systems as mutually relevant wholes. I think this gives a good overview http://www.bahaistudies.net/asma/jgbennett.pdf http://www.decisionintegrity.co.uk/DIL Qualitative Systems Thinking = Hodgson.pdf

"A common characteristic of these varied techniques is the recognition that structure is a primary element of experience and not something that is added by the mind. In this respect it can be said that the techniques of understanding call for a drastic revision of the usual modes of thought that treat being and understanding as independent or at least as separable from one another." - J.G.Bennett

Keywords: general systematics, appreciative systems, inquiry systems, isomorphism, complexity, connectedness, science of qualities, socio-technical messes, cross-disciplinary, n-term systems, monad, dyad, tetrad, pentad, hexad, septad, octad, sustainability, viable systems, sustainable democracy. (From second article)

Cool thank you Joseph. I like the tip for writing you have there, it's great, I use it a lot. Surely a man who posts such things has read Wittgenstein?

What was Wittgenstein's message of life or higher purpose? It seems to me that he had been in much conflict with the collective unconscious of the world, quite a queer thing, he couldn't handle it and it's customs, so he tried to define what it was that he was looking at, starting with reality I imagine, but then he tried to explain reality using words and couldn't get there, then he tried to explain words using words and it was the feeling in these that was revealed to me as being something else, it was being itself that showed me I could read Wittgenstein without shooting myself in the head. A quote that I like from W in Philosophical Investigations: "The evolution of higher animals and of man, and the awakening of consciousness at a particular level. The picture is something like this: Though the ether is filled with vibrations the world is dark. But one day man opens his seeing eye and there is light. What this language primarily describes is a picture. What is to be done with the picture, how it is to be used, is still obscure. Quite clearly, however, it must be explored if we want to understand the sense of what we are saying. But the picture seems to spare us this work: it already points to a particular use. That is how it takes us in." Another quote: "You can think now of this now of this as you look at it (a triangle), can regard it now as this now as this, and then you will see it now this way, now /j-."-What way? There is no further qualification." Quote: 1. The feeling of confidence. How is this manifested in behaviour? 2. An 'inner process* stands in need of outward criteria. In my opinion the outward criteria is already there in the open, and Wittgenstein speaks of this himself. What he did was he showed us that something physical like a word or a letter could be a limited phenomena with a completely predefined purpose in the realm of possibility or perception. By predefined I mean a purpose by the eye of infinite intelligence, as maybe it could be called in this forum which exists and stands alone. I think he was able to show tangibly that most of the processes we think we go through are non existent and reality is out in the open as others in the world bear witness to you as entity. I don't really know if I am making any sense. And I think the other thing he did was show us the spirit of the now in the words in italics. He talks about this. Quote from the book Philosophical Investigations: And we do here what we do in a host of similar cases: because we cannot specify any one bodily action which we call pointing to the shape (as opposed, for example, to the colour), we say that a spiritual [mental, intellectual] activity corresponds to these words. Where our language suggests a body and there is none: there, we should like to say, is a spirit. He seems to be pointing to a multi-dimensional view of perception where we see reality and ideas directly without any particular form but rather looking at the essence without definition and with infinite intelligence. And he seems to be doing much more than this if we look through the peep hole that he has opened for us.

Thank you.

God communicates in the world whether you like it or not, says throat to heart.

'Find what you enjoy if you don't know' rings of samsara to me, a circle of self confirmation, with no purpose beyond yourself as whatever entity you make yourself to be.

I think we need to all recognise we are in a dream and wake up together. We need to become lucid in this dream we are having right now. As a result of this all other dreams will become lucid. We are lucid of 'past' lives and all lives that we are having in the now. This is my affirmation, wake up now!

@Prabhaker Do you need to define something to know something? And can you see words produced in digital form without defining them? And what do you know as a result of this? Does your experience change when you read something new? If for example you have read any Teachings from Ramana Maharshi or any other sage, was there in you, even without defining it, perhaps, a desire to seek the truth, like a movement or choice within you, even if the words stating that this was the case may not have been in your head at that time or at this time? And I can say that I feel this. I cannot define the pure religion, but I can feel it and be a part of it. That's what I think, and I am happy with it. Maybe you should read the Pure Religion it before you comment on it. Here is a quote: 'Religion is not an ideology. Religion is not a building or an organization or a hierarchy of organizations. In essence, it is the movement of God within you and between you and others functioning in the world. For God serves the world, working through people from the inside out.' This is a quote directly from 'The Pure Religion'. It does not disagree with you in any way.

@Prabhaker That is your definition of pure religion, welcome to the club, this is saying what you already know.

Your inclination towards the words it and inner peace bring me to see that your little window into the place you know best of, that is good to follow. No 'one' can be it and it cannot be it with thoughts, but you are without thoughts, so that is good.

For me my relationship with astrology is one of personal reality. I feel it is essential to us to recognise the influence of the planets on our well being because it is just so blatantly obvious just like the weather. It is a great system of archetypes, and tells us that these archetypes are in dynamic relationship with each other at all times and follow semi-predictable cycles. I find that to be beautiful and wonderful, that I can know where Venus fits in my life, since birth, and where 'she' may be travelling now, and what may be going on in 'her' life. It can all be personality, in fact, planets are personality split in many parts so you can dissect it through time.

@Leo Gura You said it well, the prana must be governed by the mind to the most subtle detail, then the well to the infinite is really dug open, and it can flow through your body as well.

Continuing, may I place your observations into a conceptual framework? This is an example of looking at essence and form. Essence=what something really is (undifferentiated consciousness). Form=how it is used in it's context (my definitions). In it's context mathematics may be useful for absolute relations that are there whether you are aware of it or not, but they reside in your subconscious, like the mathematics in your brain. Two plus two=four, just like light isn't dark (it is physically occurring in your brain). Mentally in your awareness something different is happening, you are looking at units as archetypes to understand the relations between them, so you are almost looking at the semantics of number, which has an essence. The qualitative essence of numbers is all the stories and analogies we can come up with regarding each number, in fact, we could create a spiritual teaching based solely on numbers and the absolute relations between them as they exist in permanent reality. The moment you create a number, all numbers are created simultaneously, so we come back to observation and the understanding that numbers are both meaningless, because they are already there, and also meaningful, because if you look at them they make sense to you and give you a reality that is obvious in some way. This reality cannot be contradicted in any way because it is self explanatory and is self existent. You can use numbers just like you use clay, in some way, when you mold it and bend it, it's truth remains the same. So more clearly explained, while I am sleeping, two units are more than one unit, and my brain knows this, and even my decomposing body knows this when I am dying, as it will decompose more quickly if there are more bacteria eating it up. But as a mind who is now seeking enlightenment, I want to know the truth of all 'things' on an absolute level, and I have realized I don't need to store bottle caps when bottle caps are already in nature itself. 1+1=15 which IS

Yay a topic to post in to try and prove my intellectual superiority above all of you! No not really, but I am curious as to what words come out of my mouth in this regard. So number 1 I would like to compliment Truth Addict for this wonderful observation. I see the meaning in what you are saying and it is excellent, I think. So by the nature of what you are saying I understand that all things are one, and one is all things? So I see this as the ability to hold a single concept in one's mind even if it has many separate parts. So I can look at a person which will most definitely have many sub-personalities, but it is one for me as I speak of them, so the name of this person is one, without needing to refer to or even look at or allow to arise in one's awareness all the subcomponents of it, like a reductionist. I like this a lot, because you are leaving room to the mystery of life by seeing something as it is. But also it is nothing and all things, so you leave room for that also.

Hello, What is this form? My name is Danny and I am a being from Australia, currently residing in human form, apparently, but also learning to navigate the world in other ways, such as navigating the other aspects of life that have often been left unknown by humanity at large, because they lie in the shadows, or are like myself, fringe dwellers. So here my shot in the dark as in my identity, is to send a message to the universe and see what manifests, like a scientist having a vision and pushing it out there with no hypothesis and the aim to see the outcome, why am I talking about this, because it is important to live with questions without trying to predict or expect an answer for yourself, because you know nothing of the variables. So next question, does this form have a meaning in it's life? Now, here I attempt to look at myself as objectively as possible, without preferences or demands, and my navigational aspect needs to be seen as it is, whether it is broken or efficient, I need to see it like a doctor who is diagnosing a patient, with full attention and objectivity. This is all done with full clarity and equanimity. Action. As I am observing myself, I am in constant action, and I realize that me is always in action, and I is present intermittently for the things I favour. So here I must learn my ebbs and flows and I am who I am if I am not looking, this way I am who I am and I enjoy this even when I am not looking. I look and I know, but I never see anything, so I delight in this, and trust that my freedom brings 'me' somewhere, as I sit in eternal delight. I have lost concern for where me goes. So here I am in entry, it is left outside, I am here, and who remains? An it that is a new it in a cave, and one that is in a cave in society but is still in a cave. Ego. And now where does this cave leave me? And it is in it, or is it, which now I want to maintain, and is not based on addiction and I want to cultivate it, so I am here to do this together with you, or I, or we. A new it for self development, is one possibility, but never actuality, unless you realise you are already actualized.