Unbearable Ambition

That is a nuanced question. I might assume you mean can I fall with grace by your following reference to aikido, in which case, since we’re speaking figuratively, it would depend through which mirror I view my fall. If we are talking about whether I know how to let myself fall, as the second quote (about trying the impossible) could imply, I suppose the answer would be, I fall all the time, and sometimes on my face, but if the risk is a fall from a steep precipice where falling means sudden death then, I have attempted that too and not always thoughtfully, but I am not always sure what would be worth that kind of risk.

Well played, the lower bodily needs often have a way of catching up on idealism. I think there is already a recycling toilet, we’ll just have to make it portable… or scatter them along the paths like Hansel and Gretel did breadcrumbs.

Actually this might be something worth taking the risk of the precipice for. There is much life in historical relics, and it seems we are often positioned at least ten meters back from them or behind two meters of glass. If there was more of substance being produced today I suppose I wouldn’t take it so sorely, do you know of anything contemporary worth looking into? I suppose until I own an old manor with wings filled with artifacts, or attempt mission impossible, I may have to resign myself to the back of a line…

Since you evidently know more about the Torah and its secrets I must defer to you on the subject.

Your experience was evidently much different than mine, which is a good thing and a surely a good counterweight to my preconceptions. I attended a public school where the curriculum was not well composed, most of our days were spent copying overheads with minimal instruction from our teachers. Some useful tidbits I picked up in school was that in the trenches soldiers called canned meat “bully beef”… I ended up dropping out of school and most of what I know (beyond basic things like reading and writing) is self taught. I am sure I would have benefitted from a better school environment, I just don’t think it could have come from the schools I attended.

I wonder what criteria could we propose to meet so as to judge something worth compelling another to learn? Business reports, for example, can be useful. Is usefulness the gauge, or something more? Or would it less be a matter of compelling than exposing the pupil to it and letting their inclination guide them, but I’m sure even for that we might desire a limit, because a stubborn will might refuse to learn anything at all, or is this how one would best approach the subject?

It’s in between – to be able to fall gracefully lessens the fear and the actual danger involved with falling. So the better you learn to fall and ‘roll with it’ the narrower and steeper the ridges you can climb.

To make it truly a free-roaming experience we could simly have rastered holes in the corner of each room. I think that is how reality often finds its way; there is no hall of exaltation that does not have a hole for excrement.

Interesting metaphor indeed - I might write something later on what I heard about ‘spiritual shitting’… but perhaps that is better saved for another place. No decision has been made yet on the desired dgeree of ubiquitousness of toilets.

This is why I travel whenever I get the chance. However shallow and pointless our global contemporary culture is, nations still have their depths of which the modern inhabitants are unaware, largely and often, unaware also that they still represent it. Learning to speak proper French was I think the most satisfying discovery of cultural worth in my adult life. Despite the obvious charm of French, it could be any language, whatever you instinctively find fitting to a repressed part of the psyche. That is what new languages do to me, they open up space for parts of my psyche that had been repressed to flourish. I only need rocky hills and a deserted dust track to be perfectly happy in these periods of learning, changing.

Surely I am not a recognized authority in this, modern believers will claim that the explanations are substantial of themselves – as metaphors. But if you ever heard someone recite the Torah in Hebrew and heard a priest reciting from the old testament in a modern language, the difference is quite clear.

The same sort of thing goes for the Koran. It is primarily an Arab work of art or revelation. It’s beauty is perceptible only in Arab. Many non Arab muslims account of this. This is the way it was ‘revealed’, inspired - a language is more (and less) than a set of universal symbols.

It sounds indeed as if I had a more substantial education… but truly it was mainly these two languages that made the difference. The rigor of Latin, unknown to us now, and the strange splendidness of Greek - yes, precisely what is for a ‘successful modern’ a non-functional world of immense dignity, this is what taught me or planted to seed for me to rise above modernity, functionality, for that is indeed a crux.

The qestion is: Useful for what?
Useful is never a standard. It needs a standard. Useful for cleaning toilets? No, Greek is not. Useful for buying stocks? It might be, depending. But probably not. Useful for experiencing joy? Most definitely. Useful as an introcuction top philosophy? Most useful.

But I am radically against use value as a philosophical or even psychological standard. What is the use of joy? What is the use of philosophy? What is the use of life?

What you describe is pure will. I am not denying ambition in it, but it is more universal than an ambition, which is specific beyond proving and increasing strength, which is the basis for life. Ambition in this case is the imagination of a transformed world. This is why it is unbearable, or was; because of the vast distance between the present of the OP and the present of the OP’s mind. But I have been progressing rapidly with MM, and now these two past weeks he has produced with your help a quantum leap in scientific understanding that realizes perhaps the most difficult part of this ambition. I know my part in it, and I have always known that my ambition requires a number of unlikely geniuses who I just figured would exist because I exist.

Dangerous perhaps so much praise but we must recognize the worth of a good work. We have no institutions that back us and publish our discoveries so that thousands of students can put their teeth in it. It is necessary to be definite about the severity of the work, otherwise there is no hope for propagation. Frivolity and the internet belong together, and this is why philosophy must fundamentally transform the internet - it must transform itself into a foundation of a new internet structure; the consistency and core of which is not the rhizome, but it’s cause; the self-valuing of the concept of self valuing - the primordial vortex of the logos.

Indeed.

The internet’s inter-design is in the same pattern as our brain’s neurons and the way stars and matter emerge from space outside of this very planet.

When you think about it, we’re within the Universe’s matrix, within our matrix, within the computer’s matrix - it’s matrix-ception, yet this is how you argue against matrix theories - despite that, everything comes together as “one”. What does this mean? It means that a matrix cannot exist in a Universe that is fundamentally relative.

The matrix is the reality - a relative one.

That said, I cannot wait to make that breakthrough with M&M’s. We’re both on a very hot trail and my magic number “144” is going to help him get there faster. That number 144 is incredible. You will see in due time, friend.

You said you had a part in this. What did you mean by that?

Yes, it’s transient, conditional to the actuality of each individual self-valuing. Even humans are transient like that and can become aware of it if the mind attains to a deep subtlety of self-valuing, which results in powers extending to dispersing clouds or evoking lightning.

144 is also 2 times 72, two fifths of 360, one of the ways the golden ratio appears in the pentad.

I invented this self-valuing logic, and drew up that 9 matrix, though of course that’s not my contribution to life in any sense but I pointed MM to it. The idea of putting it together came to me in my sleep once.

If humans weren’t transient - … Do you have any idea what life would be like?

Indeed.

Well aren’t we all just a lovely bunch of geniuses!

And Fixed Cross is…?

Sorry -I was wondering how confusing it was, but I never feel the tendency to clear it up. I am Fixed Cross.

“No, not.” “No, not really.” “Not, no.”
these are phrases that come to mind.

Hitler had 5 of those in his natal chart, neatly arranged.

Yes. I think we should have a tree house.

Now the question of navigating this transient web as humans both inward and outward. As MM has shown elsewhere these scales mirror in consciousness, and can in a subtle consciousness mirror in such a way that they connect more directly through their actual spin logic, hook into the absolute future and come to resonate and produce what has hitherto been known as states of divine consciousness.

To share fully what I have learned as being tradition but do not understand -
11, 22, 33 are counted as semi-irreducible - as exalted versions of 2, 4 and 6; this would have to account for the justification of the decimal system. That this system is not completely arbitrary can be grasped from the magic number of five in two: 144.

What comes to mind for me is “MACHINES”.

Are you saying what I think you’re saying?

Let’s call it the “Big O’ Tree” house. That’s a double entendre. It will be home for us and ironic hell for bigots.

I know.

That’s why I asked you like that.

That said. Please go to M&M’s genius thread and see what I figured out with the help of Artimas.

Your brain is going to go boom.

That would be correct.

11 x 11 = 121

22 x 22 = 484

33 x 33 = 1089

The sequence is 4 7 9

1 4 7

2 5 8

3 6 9

The sum of those numbers is |1694|.

The sequence is 2.

Half of 1694 is |847|

1694 x 2 = |3388| ←

33 x 33 = 1089

88 x 88 = |7744|

The sum of those numbers is |8833|. ←

33 + 88 = |121|

What numbers in the Magic Square we highlighted? 1 4 7 2 8 3 9. Altogether, that’s |34|. The sequence is 7.

What numbers weren’t highlighted? 5 and 6. Altogether, that’s |11|. The sequence is 1.

If you ask me, these number are 1 off from both, .33 and 42 (the answer to life).

We have 41, add a 1, you get 42.

We have a 34, subtract a 1, you get 33.

11 + 1 = |12|

One last thing: The highlighted numbers are doing something wicked. 2 + 1 = |3| 3 = |3| 4+7+8+9 =|28| Is this Universe really saying “Two 8’s?”. That gives us |3388|.

I wasn’t aware you were Fixed Cross, you’ve made some very good posts on this forum

Thanks for the discussion, I’m going to take some time to let it sink in.

I look forward to reading more of your posts here and through the links you directed me to earlier.

Yes, the level of transience of or our states - and thus the subtlety of our selfvaluing overall control determines the degree of our our human genius, our ‘freedom from determinism’ - the degree to which our consciousness includes (differentiates and activates) the possibilities that cause its movements. Selfcontrol means stabilized futurality, means ‘faith’ in the sense of knowing ones paradigm of potential, mind being not just morally committed but carnally wedded to reality.

I am not sure; in any case I am saying I am an astrologer, and that Hitler was a magician - in the sense of a phenomenon driven by short-cut ties to and between different causal logics operating on us through the system in which Earth is embedded. The system is highly electrical. Subtle cross-referential spectral resonance shifts are pervasive in the electricity of our brains. I am sure half of my readers will drop me. And this is indeed a matter that is more comfortably discussed behind closed doors. But I find it important to make it known that to my mind the astrological logics are wholly derived from geometrical properties of the relations between the primordial numbers; 2, 3, 4 and 6 figure into the building of the 12-fold Zodiac, where the permutations of of 3- and 4-foldness form the backbone of the typology. The central cardinalities are the two horizons on the path of the earths rotation; both around the sun (“signs” - segments, not constellations) and around its axis (“houses”), and the intersections of the suns ecliptic with the zenith meridian, nadir and midheaven (corresponding in the greater wheel to 0 Cancer and 0 Capricorn). The Vedic system orients not on geometrical points but on constellations; it is thus each 60 years one degree further off from the western system on which it appears to founded by the fact that the difference is now something like 27 degrees, which means that the split must have occurred less than two millennia ago, at which point the Vedic philosophy was already dying. And indeed astrology makes a lot more sense if its coordinates are based on physical angles and proximities, rather than on endless depths of endlessly differentiated radiation from indeterminate ‘constellations’, relying on a model rather lacking in dimensionality.

Aye.

Thank you! You have a musical mind.
I will enjoy Strauss.

Transience gave us the power to imagine and to experience the Universe as it is rather than animate us purely on stimuli and physiological reaction.

Well, let’s test that theory. Take a sign that is based on 0 or 1 and take a sign that is based on 9 or 8. If the former are both numbers that represent fundamental aspect and the latter the opposite, then perhaps those numbers truly mean something on a much higher scale that is beyond the ambiguous implication of it that’s commonly hunting down the gullible.

Based on 0? Not sure what you mean, but:

1 Aries, cardinal fire, initiative, expansion (primary)
8 Scorpio, fixed water, containment, perseverance (secondary)

Astrology is based on the angles between the planets from the birth perspective, when the electrical system of the organism is separated from its mother’s.
These angles produce a system called harmonics, where 360 is 1. Of these harmonics the 1, 2, 3 and 4 are enough to create the 12 fold system of cardinalities and elements. Elements pertain to expansion and contraction, phases of density, Water is the final, perfected contained element, fire the first, expansive and self-generating. Mutable fire, 9 Sagittarius, is consuming and dispersing across the board.

The principle is two fold - self-valuing (cardinal-fixed) and valuing (fixed-mutable).

Al this is speculative -
I know astrology primarily as a collection of empirical data. All information (sun in aquarius = ) is [limited] and charts must be read whole. This means integrating the geometry into an overall pattern.
But the geometry extends to a system of qualities, which is not reducible to numbers without knowing fully the complete chemical structures of the planets and the Sun - it is easier to atomically deconstruct a brain to achieve the same ends. Order is humanly reducible to principle, but quality is not; therefore all human attempts to this end bring about a reduction of the human quality.

I’m a Scorpio.

I agree. But I would appreciate it if you could further expound on your knowledge of astrology, while keeping out “esoteric” terms. Use words that I can understand. I do not like names. All I need is the basis of the design and it will come to me on its own.