shintashi
04-13-2009, 12:04 AM
Greetings.
Many years ago, somewhere, though I can't recall precisely, I began examining the foundations of existence - not unlike many of you have, or will in the essential process of wrestling with paradigm shifts. I found myself connecting dots like circuits on a schematic: connecting Free Will, Decision, Dynamic, Static, Truth, Perception, Delusion/Maya, Mithya, Satya, and so on… So far, so good. Everything worked fine except for two struggles that vexed me until recently: The nature of Faith, and the nature of Light. Most recently, perhaps by mere fluke of overhearing a random speech by a rejected academic from the bible belt, a lucid interpretation of the latter become possible, and I've decided to elaborate here.
Trained originally as a Physics major, (before switching to the east Asian languages & cultures department) my confusion should come as no surprise with regard to any metaphysical aspect of light, having been trained to believe them as subatomic bosons and visualized as tiny packets of light or liquid energy droplets constituting the primary substance of Plasma. Obviously, trying to connect something so basic and materialistic to the insubstantial principles of Truth, Good, or Beauty, seemed entirely preposterous. All of the scriptures describing Light lacked any kind of substantial meaning. Examining old testament quotes confirms little value in the way of characteristics:
Light: begins with God saying so, who sees it; good; divided from darkness; shines; associated with but not synonymous with Truth; can be given; absent in the wicked; used for perception…
Not much to go on, in terms of metaphysics. As to that random speech - a fundamental Truth containing myriad potentialities, despite its simplicity:
The Darkness doesn’t move; Light does.
Darkness is without form, and void. You cannot grasp it, bite it, chew it, cut it, slice it, or sell it on Ebay. You cannot trap it, free it, hold it, sleep with it, or speak with it. While the last two are arguable, the essential fact remains, Darkness, in terms of what exists, and doesn’t. It has the characteristics of NOT. Arguing about the virtues of darkness seems a bit like “asking about the marital status of the number 5” (D. Albert, 2008 lectures: Physics & Philosophy). Arguably, Physicists know as much about darkness as Christians know about light, but perhaps there is so much more to be inferred by simply Aristotelian logic:
Darkness is without motion, and still. Being still, it is also quiet – silent. The definition of temperature – in terms of hot & cold is loosely defined as either motion or vibration of substances, such as monatomic gas, solids, and molecular gases. With the exception of ideal monatomic gases, all matter experiencing temperature also experiences vibration. In this sense, vibration is related to heat. Clearly where vibration exists, sound exists. Sound can be defined several ways as well, but heat – the transfer and thus equilibrium of temperature, has a similar characteristic to sound – which is not merely vibration in the strictest sense, but a transmission (of vibration) from one system to the next. For sake of simplicity, let it be said that heat, sound, and temperature are relatively the same effect, and all of them are rooted in something that is undeniable: Motion. The higher the motion, in all systems – even ideal monatomic gases, the higher the temperature, and thus the higher the potential energy for heat transfer, and the higher the potential energy for sound. Anyone with a drum or capable of rubbing two hands together knows the faster you rub your hands together the warmer they get. The faster you strike a drum, the louder the sound.
What do we then know about Darkness? Darkness is Static. It doesn’t move, and it doesn’t change. It is Light that effects a change within the Darkness. Without a light and matter to cast a shadow, the shadow in no way appears to move. Darkness does not seep into the light, or suddenly grow, expand or contract. Light does. Knowing then only one characteristic of Darkness – its static nature, allows us to infer the following:
Darkness contains absolutely no temperature. It is not even slightly warm, but possesses total, absolute cold. On the most natural level, we can experience this cooling by stepping out of a hot summer’s day into the shade, or go exploring deep into a cave. It is the light of the Sun that warms the Earth, and the light of the sun that creates the winds. Light is a kind of electromagnetic energy, like the Aurora Borealis generated by the Earth’s electromagnetic field interfering with the solar winds and storms. We can also infer the darkness is without sound, or vibration, for without motion, there is no vibration. Light on the other hand, is constantly in motion. When it ceases to be in motion, it transforms into something else.
On a subatomic scale, people often ask what substances are composed of. The answer is astonishingly simple: Motion. Creating a theory of vibrating strings in one, five, or 12 dimensions does not make the movement any less genuine. If the nature of light is motion, and the essence of every material is motion, then it follows the essence of every material is the nature of light. The nature of Light is the essence of every material.
The motion of Light is Dynamic Darkness. To say ‘Darkness as Static is merely Darkness, but Darkness as Dynamic is Light’ means what? If a substratum is in vibration, is that vibration is Light? Does this mean the Dynamic aspect of vibration in the substratum is Light? When Light is created in the Darkness of the Substratum, Some part of the Substratum must accelerate. An infinite line is parallel to a circle with infinite diameter. Light moves both as a line and as a wave, and a wave is merely a circle in motion. A circle lacking linear motion but constant torque is in constant acceleration, like spinning in a cyclotron the forces spin outward from the center pulling in every direction.
It is the nature of acceleration, not velocity which distorts the perception of time. A Person who is in a car for a long period at high speeds experiences vertigo when slowing down – vertigo of slow moving objects once familiar. Despite this, people are constantly moving at thousands of times the speed of terminal velocity, and only notice changes when changing directions – this is largely due to relative motion. Acceleration is Anti-Time. Creating Light thus begins with creating Anti-Time and if Light represents Acceleration, and Acceleration Opposes Time, Then Darkness represents Time.
If Light represents Change in the Substratum then Light represents Dynamic in the first principle, first order of the universe; however Dynamic also represents endless Change (and Power) on a persistent, consistent level. In this regard light which does not exist in an orbit and does not change or interact, is no more dynamic than darkness. Philosophically, light experiences change by emanating but the emanation is the consequence of the change of one state to the next, not the essence of change itself. While light appears to emanate in three dimensional space, it’s velocity of emanation is constant. Ironically, it is this constant nature that tells us light is moving outside its dimensional threshold. Light fades at rate of distance squared. If the total disturbance of light accelerated – if the substratum grew hotter with its expansion, it might sweep across the cosmos like a colossal Supernova, never losing its brilliance.
Many years ago, somewhere, though I can't recall precisely, I began examining the foundations of existence - not unlike many of you have, or will in the essential process of wrestling with paradigm shifts. I found myself connecting dots like circuits on a schematic: connecting Free Will, Decision, Dynamic, Static, Truth, Perception, Delusion/Maya, Mithya, Satya, and so on… So far, so good. Everything worked fine except for two struggles that vexed me until recently: The nature of Faith, and the nature of Light. Most recently, perhaps by mere fluke of overhearing a random speech by a rejected academic from the bible belt, a lucid interpretation of the latter become possible, and I've decided to elaborate here.
Trained originally as a Physics major, (before switching to the east Asian languages & cultures department) my confusion should come as no surprise with regard to any metaphysical aspect of light, having been trained to believe them as subatomic bosons and visualized as tiny packets of light or liquid energy droplets constituting the primary substance of Plasma. Obviously, trying to connect something so basic and materialistic to the insubstantial principles of Truth, Good, or Beauty, seemed entirely preposterous. All of the scriptures describing Light lacked any kind of substantial meaning. Examining old testament quotes confirms little value in the way of characteristics:
Light: begins with God saying so, who sees it; good; divided from darkness; shines; associated with but not synonymous with Truth; can be given; absent in the wicked; used for perception…
Not much to go on, in terms of metaphysics. As to that random speech - a fundamental Truth containing myriad potentialities, despite its simplicity:
The Darkness doesn’t move; Light does.
Darkness is without form, and void. You cannot grasp it, bite it, chew it, cut it, slice it, or sell it on Ebay. You cannot trap it, free it, hold it, sleep with it, or speak with it. While the last two are arguable, the essential fact remains, Darkness, in terms of what exists, and doesn’t. It has the characteristics of NOT. Arguing about the virtues of darkness seems a bit like “asking about the marital status of the number 5” (D. Albert, 2008 lectures: Physics & Philosophy). Arguably, Physicists know as much about darkness as Christians know about light, but perhaps there is so much more to be inferred by simply Aristotelian logic:
Darkness is without motion, and still. Being still, it is also quiet – silent. The definition of temperature – in terms of hot & cold is loosely defined as either motion or vibration of substances, such as monatomic gas, solids, and molecular gases. With the exception of ideal monatomic gases, all matter experiencing temperature also experiences vibration. In this sense, vibration is related to heat. Clearly where vibration exists, sound exists. Sound can be defined several ways as well, but heat – the transfer and thus equilibrium of temperature, has a similar characteristic to sound – which is not merely vibration in the strictest sense, but a transmission (of vibration) from one system to the next. For sake of simplicity, let it be said that heat, sound, and temperature are relatively the same effect, and all of them are rooted in something that is undeniable: Motion. The higher the motion, in all systems – even ideal monatomic gases, the higher the temperature, and thus the higher the potential energy for heat transfer, and the higher the potential energy for sound. Anyone with a drum or capable of rubbing two hands together knows the faster you rub your hands together the warmer they get. The faster you strike a drum, the louder the sound.
What do we then know about Darkness? Darkness is Static. It doesn’t move, and it doesn’t change. It is Light that effects a change within the Darkness. Without a light and matter to cast a shadow, the shadow in no way appears to move. Darkness does not seep into the light, or suddenly grow, expand or contract. Light does. Knowing then only one characteristic of Darkness – its static nature, allows us to infer the following:
Darkness contains absolutely no temperature. It is not even slightly warm, but possesses total, absolute cold. On the most natural level, we can experience this cooling by stepping out of a hot summer’s day into the shade, or go exploring deep into a cave. It is the light of the Sun that warms the Earth, and the light of the sun that creates the winds. Light is a kind of electromagnetic energy, like the Aurora Borealis generated by the Earth’s electromagnetic field interfering with the solar winds and storms. We can also infer the darkness is without sound, or vibration, for without motion, there is no vibration. Light on the other hand, is constantly in motion. When it ceases to be in motion, it transforms into something else.
On a subatomic scale, people often ask what substances are composed of. The answer is astonishingly simple: Motion. Creating a theory of vibrating strings in one, five, or 12 dimensions does not make the movement any less genuine. If the nature of light is motion, and the essence of every material is motion, then it follows the essence of every material is the nature of light. The nature of Light is the essence of every material.
The motion of Light is Dynamic Darkness. To say ‘Darkness as Static is merely Darkness, but Darkness as Dynamic is Light’ means what? If a substratum is in vibration, is that vibration is Light? Does this mean the Dynamic aspect of vibration in the substratum is Light? When Light is created in the Darkness of the Substratum, Some part of the Substratum must accelerate. An infinite line is parallel to a circle with infinite diameter. Light moves both as a line and as a wave, and a wave is merely a circle in motion. A circle lacking linear motion but constant torque is in constant acceleration, like spinning in a cyclotron the forces spin outward from the center pulling in every direction.
It is the nature of acceleration, not velocity which distorts the perception of time. A Person who is in a car for a long period at high speeds experiences vertigo when slowing down – vertigo of slow moving objects once familiar. Despite this, people are constantly moving at thousands of times the speed of terminal velocity, and only notice changes when changing directions – this is largely due to relative motion. Acceleration is Anti-Time. Creating Light thus begins with creating Anti-Time and if Light represents Acceleration, and Acceleration Opposes Time, Then Darkness represents Time.
If Light represents Change in the Substratum then Light represents Dynamic in the first principle, first order of the universe; however Dynamic also represents endless Change (and Power) on a persistent, consistent level. In this regard light which does not exist in an orbit and does not change or interact, is no more dynamic than darkness. Philosophically, light experiences change by emanating but the emanation is the consequence of the change of one state to the next, not the essence of change itself. While light appears to emanate in three dimensional space, it’s velocity of emanation is constant. Ironically, it is this constant nature that tells us light is moving outside its dimensional threshold. Light fades at rate of distance squared. If the total disturbance of light accelerated – if the substratum grew hotter with its expansion, it might sweep across the cosmos like a colossal Supernova, never losing its brilliance.