|
REPLY TO THREAD
|
|
Subject
|
True and Fully-Verifiable Meaning of "As Above, So Below"
|
|
User Name
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Font color:
Font:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original Message
|
True and Fully-Verifiable Meaning of "As Above, So Below"
Even though I am called Fr. Perspicuous in some circles, it is difficult to be perspicuous about these matters. That is why YOU, the fine forumites here at GLP, will have to do your due diligence in verifying/refuting the validity of my assertions in this thread. Of course, everyone knows this stuff instinctively but few people are consciously aware of it or recognize it for what it is.
************************************************************
The first assertion is this:
A subject observes itself observing itself observing itself observing itself ad infinitum.
That's obviously the short version. It represents the "below" aspect.
************************************************************
The second assertion is this:
A subject is observed by itself being observed by itself being observed by itself being observed by itself ad infinitum.
Again, that's obviously the short version. It represents the "above" aspect.
************************************************************
These two assertions are the result of long and tedious logical deduction by myself. There are no currently known (by "this subject"--but please argue if you can) logical fasifications available for these two assertions.
These two assertions are the only two (that "this subject" has discovered--but please add more if you can) complete, unambiguous assertions that can NOT be logically falsified except for the assertion that "There are, at least, two logically unfalsifiable assertions".
These two assertions (to the lay person) may look similar but they assert two very different things, in two different directions: "below" and "above". Please do your due diligence if you have trouble understanding this.
I would recommend beginning by using logical deduction to find these two assertions. The first one is easiest to deduce. The second is the logical consequence of the first.
This is not a thread to promote mysticism or somesuch thing. It is not a thread to dismiss mysticism or somesuch thing. This is a thinking (wo)man's thread.
This is NOT one of those enigmatic threads where people speak in allegorical terms. This is a "face-value" thread.
I am open to logical falsification.
I am open to providing strict definitions for all nouns/verbs in the assertions. I hope that this will not be necessary because that's where being perspicuous becomes very difficult but I'm open to it.
Thanks for reading and enjoy your newfound awareness of what CAN be known.
|
|
Pictures (click to insert)
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | | Next Page >> |
|
