Oy Chihuahua- word games.

Akash and akashic records are popular due to Edgar Cayce's spirit guide. They essentially mean space. Don't get into the confuson.

The reason that the term "akashic record" is appropriate is that there is ultimately no matter. Everything is done by twisting space onto itself, thus forming and maintaining relationships. (The formal topic to explain this is differential geometry, which I won't touch because I'm lousy in that area.) As you think, you are actually twisting space. That's how your mind can alter your tendencies to form one set of relationships as opposed to another, allowing you to put honey on your biscuits instead of shoe polish.

To save the forests you have two options. One is to become a tree hugging activist, and do as they do. The other is to discover the way to select a worldline (from a parallel universe) in which the forests are not destroyed, and to alter the space in your mind (meaning the collection of historical relationships by which your identity is maintained) by adding new relationships that connect you more probably to the desired worldline, so that your path eventually goes there.

Just because we have no "ultimate matter", and just because everything can be reduced to nothng but emptiness twisted around itself, nothing is changed. It's like the child who initially says that lighting the stove "lets the fire out" but later learns about combustion and gas flames etc.  Just words. Makes no difference for boiling water.

The spirit world and the world in which we live are both based in the same twisted space, and we can reduce the twists to abstract thermodynamic terms like entropy (which I often do because I'm lazy) but in fact, the relationships that exist between two twisted spaces of nothing are logically the equivalent to the relationships between hypothetical material lumps, so we actually can't tell the difference directly. In other words, the same flame of life is there, I'm just adding a lot of gas to explain it.

The impotant lesson from this abstraction is that there is an implied relationship that includes all the possible parallel universes that might be subsequent to it. We hear of saints who fly, some are Tibetan, Hindu or Christian, and a few of them levitated and found it frightening and embarrassing. I suggest that this is because their mental twists of space, meaning their historically accreted relationships by which their place in the world was defined, happened to be so aligned that their presence at what we interpret as a physically more elevated level was more probable than to stay on what we interpret as the ground. If you view it all as emtiness acting on emptiness it starts to get more plausible.  Gravity, then, reduces to nothing but a tendency to take on attributes (to form relationships with) the earth. An alternative tendency  would mean flight.

Personally, I liked flying, but aviation gas prices are prohibitive!

Saving the forest sounds more useful anyway.

dave

To be honest, Bets, it's not a "level of understanding" but a point of view. I've deliberately taken a posture in which my experiences can be mathematized and logicized, and otherwise intellectually abused. That's like describing the taste of candy in terms of sugar percentage etc. It's a nice way to explain some of the basic mechanisms, but, as S I Hayakawa used to emphasize, "This is a map. A map is not the territory." The essence is the experience, for which my specific perspective is merely one of a nearly infinite number of options. Your version is equally valid, and probably more useful to you.

Still, there seems to be a way to approach levitation, teleportation and related phenomena if one were to pursue this kind of thinking. And that's the kind of thing my interests tend to pick out.

You have Chihuahuas? My wife is Latina, and happens to be a walking archeological artifact due to her genetic history. We cantrace her ancestry all the way back around the Pacific Rim before the Land Bridge. She prefers that I don't use the rather coarse street term  that got metamorphosed into Chihuahua - On the other hand, those little ankle biters are great watch dogs. They're too small to catch and too noisy to ignore.

d

Borzois are neat.

It was an exclamation. You can ask a Spanish speaking friend what I didn't say. The first three letters are a giveaway. And at this point, I'll stop. My wife is embarrassed if I get excited and swear in Spanish (or any other language, for that matter) and I hear about it. Funny how we tend to pick up that part of a language first.

Small point of view? Hah. Like the size of those angels dancing on the head of a pin? Only enough room for the cosmos, God, and all the rest of the souls scattered through the infinite expanse of space time and the infinite future? Ah, cosmic real estate must be getting scarce indeed.

Personally, I'm in the market for an Upper Astral fixer-upper.

d

Hi Rob-
I think that for the same reason that we seem to be "visualization oriented" we also are "matter oriented". Else what could we talk about?  However, consider something like a teapot. It makes its nature known by virtue of the relational properties that it manifests - and when it isn;t manifesting (like sitting in the cupboard) we only know it by the residues of its prior activities, and their residues in the form of other things that relate to us. We are unable to sense constancy - vision, for example, requires constant stimulation, else it greys out and becomes chaotic noise.  (A sheet of paper coverig your face is a fair substitute for a non-stimulating field. Quickly we cease to "see" and start hallucinating on noise.) The key to perception is process, change etc. Thus, we are actually not able to sense anything that is not involved actively with us.  The hammering of photons on the retinal nerves does this, which is a bit deceptive, but the still object-ibn-itself is beyond our direct perception.

The ideas of "entropy" or "information content" or "akasha" or even "empty space" are efforts to identify patterns of stable interactions by referring to the presumed underlying "stuff" by which they occur. But, no object can sense its neighbors without interaction, nor can any person sense anything except in terms of process and interaction, so again, the only thing happening is process and changes of relationships.  In that sense, everything is nothing but a non-material voidness in which patterns of relationships are in perpetual flux - ourselves included. Occam's Razor thus obligates us to deny matter as a convenient myth by which to explain seemingly stable interactions and seemingly constant relationships. Thus we forget that what we are looking at, feeling, tasting etc is change, and not the putative "materiality".

I suspect that this might be upsetting to people who spend their time collecting objects like diamonds and gold bars, since it implies that at death, when the interactions cease, they have nothing. But for them we have the power mantra, "I am no-thing and no-body" which focusses us back into what we are doing and how we do it.

As for "associative reasoning", notice what happens when you walk by an Italian bistro and smell the garlic and spices - this calls up prior experiences of Pizza-eating etc - that then becomes the "meaning" of the experience. That is a primary response, and is accopanied by physiological actions and changes. The gestalt psychologists of earlier days worked in this area, but had trouble getting to secondary operations such as those acquired by reinforced learning and abstraction. (Which can be reduced to levels of logical abstraction, it turns out.) As another example, notice the "meaning" of a large, yellow, juiicy lemon, dripping with sour juice and that lemon fragrence that tickles the nose - there is a global primary response that pulls your pucker string. Then there are secondary asociations that are similar to grapefruit, vinegar, yellow paint etc, due to the existence of overlapping attributes of their attributive sets. Severe schizophrenics generally can't separate one from another, and lump everything together as the same thing, which means that they live in "the world of
puns" on a primary level.

I'm babbling. Enough. - have a great day-
d

Whoops.  Another question, Dave.  You had mentioned that Gestalt theorists were able to get to primary processing.  As I remember they didn't get to secondary processing.  Does this somehow suggest that secondary processing might just be a physical brain-mind interaction?  Something like that's how we get around in our physical realities?  Thought I'd ask before I let my curiousity dive into this one.  Thanks.

Rob

Well, primarily you've given me a lot to process.  And secondarily ... well I don't need to get to that right now.  Gracias.