The meaning of meaning

[ArturoDekko]

This is a post I have been wanting to write for some time. This is what I am here for, my purpose. This is my supreme act of sharing, it is the most valuable thing I have to give. I am laying my soul on the line here in complete honesty, hopefully among friends who can understand.

I know something, not as a belief but as a true gnosis. There is a part of me still that feels unworthy of this knowledge and I have doubted my sanity many times but every effort to disprove myself has failed. I am not being egotistical here, or at least trying not to be, but just relating something that is true, that has always been true and that is true everywhere and any time. This is the core of my being, the axis about which I function.

Let me first give my credentials: I have done jnana yoga in many forms for half a century. My abstract analytical, logical, mathematical and pattern recognition intelligence is outside any normal IQ test, it is just "life" I have difficulty with. If I was born in this current age, I would probably be labelled dyslexic and high-functioning aspergers.

I will give an overview and cover details as necessary. The full explanation involves mathematical and logical formulae and diagrams that will have to be posted as files when the time comes. (HR, if you find this, I can assure you that quadratic equations do have some use in understanding life ) This goes from quantum mechanics to cosmology with everything else in between, Godel, Heizenburg, Euclid, Aristotle, calculus ad inf.

I developed a system I called Cosmic Analogy, Cosmic Analysis which has the final conclusion that the highest analogy is the same as the deepest analysis. There are always fewer analogies than there are examples and any analogy is an example of a higher analogy, leading eventually to one truth from which all else is but an example. Analysis produces more components but, by continued analysis, the components become more similar until we realise that everything is made of different arrangements of the same thing. There are fewer types of molecules than there are types of things, there are fewer types of atoms than there are types of molecules, there are fewer types of sub-atomic components that there are types of atoms...... all the way to one type of thing out of which everything is made. This one thing is the Foundation of all there is, defines the structure and relationship of all there is and is the overall form of all there is. It is a technical description of the 'One that is all'.

This one thing has five aspects which can be seen as five undeniable axioms. The interaction of these five aspects creates a grid of logic or meaning that exists in an abstract space of infinite dimensions. Any knowledge, philosophy, religion, god or science can be shown to exist as a specific subset within this space. With this understanding, from undeniable axioms, I can define what meaning and symbolism are empirically.

One major question arises here. This is copyright-able and patent-able. Would a patent on the definition of meaning and symbolism give control over all other uses of meaning and symbolism, all other patents?

I have given this understanding many names as it has evolved including General and Specific Contextuality (cf. Einstein's General & Specific Relativity in multi-dimensional space) and Quintessential Existential Dimensionality QED (catchy huh?) but now simply refer to it as The Foundation.

This is more of a fishing exercise to see if anyone is interested in this sort of thing. In some ways, the explanation, the truth, is simple but the explanation of the explanation can get complex. It usually involves more dismantling false beliefs than anything.

For me The Foundation is the source of my Sovereignty, it clearly defines the basis of common law. The Foundation pre-empts and yet contains any man-made description of god and so is my highest authority, based not on belief or faith but on a gnosis and understanding that is adamantine.

The Foundation defines existence, proves existence must change, proves change must be cyclic, proves that all cyclic change has rhythm and proves that rhythm creates pattern. It is the recognition of that pattern that we interpret as meaning. Everything is the pattern of the rhythm of the cycles of change of existence. There is nothing else.

The Foundation can categorically refute the conclusions of Hegelian/Marxian Dialectcs which form an incomplete and minor subset of the whole.

The Foundation does for existence what set theory does for mathematics. This is THE general theory from which all else arises, all physical truths, all philosophical truths, all forms of understanding are defined within it. We only register change. This is unchanging and so is invisible until you know how to look. This is the absolute truth, all else relies on context.

I feel like a little boy who has stumbled upon a huge and beautiful diamond that has always just been lying there in the road but no one else can see it until they have learned to see properly, without assumption.

I am making some big claims here but I can back them up for anyone prepared to spend the time understanding.

I eagerly await your thought, you lovely people, and will post in more detail as required and as time permits.

AD

[jobsaboba]

Yes.... I Understand this too.
never been able to discuss it though.....
kinda lonely, dont ya think ?

Jobs

EDIT:....
Dont get this bit though........

One major question arises here. This is copyright-able and patent-able. Would a patent on the definition of meaning and symbolism give control over all other uses of meaning and symbolism, all other patents?


Regards

Jobs

[ArturoDekko]

Wow, someone who understands some of this. In my experience, that makes you a very rare person.
Lonely? Not half. I understand "no one to discuss it with" only too well. When you understand something that the general population does not, you end up feeling like the strange one. I go fishing (metaphorically) with anyone that seems likely to understand. There are five basic points, most peoples eyes glaze over before I get to number three

Patents? What I have done is crystallise the understanding in a specific set of mathematical/logical formulae. That is patent-able. If someone patented a torch but did not patent the battery, the person who then patented the battery would have prior claim over the torch patent as it would not work without the battery. In the same way, these formulae patent meaning and symbolism and so have prior claim over any written or symbolic form. At least, that is the theory.

AD

[Phil: C]

Hi AD
Most of this is a bit beyond me I'm afraid, but I think you'll have some takers and I look forward to some interesting exchanges.
Would you describe yourself as a bottom-up thinker? By which I mean that you gain your understandings by detailed analysis combined with an extremely retentive and responsive memory. I'm a top-down type – I aim to reduce everything to the minimum level of complexity. It's a lazy way I know, and I sometimes wish I had the kinds of abilities you and others here clearly have ! My minimalist approach says "I know I exist, therefore something exists, whatever its true nature. It is self-evidently impossible for something to come from nothing, therefore something must always have existed." However, there's a problem with the last phrase, because it implies the pre-existence of time. Or perhaps the real problem is just language – words. I imagine our new friend GhostyGoo may have something to say about this.
Innumerable writers have given us accounts of timeless epiphanies, in which they find themselves at one with the universe, omnipresent. It’s possible to conceive that time does not exist everywhere in the universe. Time is required for change to happen, therefore if time is not universally present The Foundation does not explain the entirety of existence.
My brain hurts, it’s time to stop now!
Fantastic post, many thanks AD.

Phil C.

[BaldBeardyDude]

I first imagined 42, but that's been done!

Hi Arturo - I won't say I get it all, I will say that I agree in principle to one base 'thing' with all else being built from it, yes. I can grasp that and have no problem there. I always considered physics to be the science/tool which would furnish us with the ultimate question first, then the answer some time later.

When you get to philosophy, I get lost, I have never studied any and have no real desire to , either, tbh.

If, however, the answer can be demonstrated ONLY with the equations, etc, then bring it on!! I hated it all at school, but could do it easily enough.

I am intrigued, obviously, so would very much like to know more - who wouldn't? Hello, I know 'THE answer - want me to tell you...?'

Oh, go on then....

[Phil: C]

Arturo, are you aware of the work of physicist Nassim Haramein? He’s the Director of Research at The Resonance Project: http://theresonanceproject.org/index.html
Here are some quotes from the site:
“As early as 9 years old, Nassim was already developing the basis for a unified hyperdimensional theory of matter and energy, which he eventually called the "Holofractographic Universe."
“Nassim has spent most of his life researching the fundamental geometry of hyperspace, studying a variety of fields from theoretical physics, cosmology, quantum mechanics, biology and chemistry to anthropology and ancient civilizations. Combining this knowledge with a keen observation of the behavior of nature, he discovered a specific geometric array that he found to be fundamental to creation, and the foundation for his Unified Field Theory emerged.”
I dimly sense that his work and yours may be similar in some way. Or I've completely misunderstood!
Phil.

[ArturoDekko]

Thanks for that Baldy. Made me laugh. I can give you the answer right now: one (1). Not very satisfying I know but it is the expansion of the understanding of one that ends up explaining everything. I do not blame you for being confused by philosophers. They each treasure their bit of the puzzle and rubbish everyone else bit, not realising there is a larger picture that encompasses them all. They are all right in part and wrong in part. Enjoy the ride.

Thanks for the link Aravat. Shall peruse more later but, yes, I think our work is intertwined. The Foundation is not a practical understanding. It is the abstract logic that underlies such work as Haraman's or Rodin's. Most people inadvertently make assumptions when thinking, some of which might be right but until those assumptions are exposed and explained you cannot tell if they are true or not. I deliberately removed all assumptions and the foundation appeared without time or space or any other dimension. The sequence of logic actually starts with one assumption, that is that a single point of zero dimensions exists, expressed as A=A (Equivalent to saying, "Something exists." or "That is an elephant.". The elephant has dimensions galore but the idea does not, like a strawman.). Everything else flows from that.

Strangely, I started at age 9 too. I had worked my way through all the practical books in the local library from A to Y where I discovered yoga and pranayama,then found raja yoga and specifically jnana yoga, tied myself in knots and breathed funny for years thinking on the meaning of life. That set me off questioning everything. What kind of thinker am I? One that goes in all directions, I guess. I certainly do not have an amazing memory. In fact the lack of memory has been a driving force for my style of thinking. I could not remember formulae but I could remember the logic that created them, so I always generated formulae from first principals and often generated formulae that were better suited to the task at hand than the original would have been. This is what I have done with The Foundation, generated from first principals. I pre-load my mind by specifically remembering the surrounding understanding I already have, symbolise/analogise all that down to one core understanding, then open my mind to the question I seek the answer to. I now have a feeling, sense or intuition, like finding a slight downhill path and following it, sometime almost a sense of smell. I leave myself open to allow the answer to come to me. Grasping for it just seems to chase it away. Becoming receptive, creating a space for the answer to fit into, bring it to you. Once I have an answer, I check it against other possible answers to see if I can disprove it, then see how that fits with the core understanding, if it is correct, new insights will spring from the understanding you already had. Then I open the symbolised core understanding out again (analysis) into Its components and assimilate the new understanding with each of these, gaining more insight. Then I test the new understanding against a few randomly chosen practical example in my mental laboratory. (Until I wrote that down, I had not realised how precise my technique is, it just kinda flows that way. I will also add here that, for me, this does not work nearly so well when confronted with the complexities of life.) To summarise, I analogise my understanding to a single point, learn from that point and then analyse back to the understanding I started with but with a new perspective. Hence The Foundation is the symbolised core understanding at the root of a hierarchy of symbolised understandings that grows in wonder and splendor as I gaze on the details of the One that is all. I will talk of time later but I will say that what I have found cannot never have been, if you will excuse the double negative. It is un-created, it is the supreme inherence of existence itself. Big claims which I will justify later. I could not have said that with the confidence I know have before finding my Sovereignty.
Enough of that, the dog needs walking. I will end with a poem along the same lines that I found while hunting for a file.


2.2.5+1
1 The pen strikes the paper,
2 The writing begins.
3 Will it be Maya or Spirit
4 That wins?
5 This poem starts before the
6 Ink flows,
7 My hand moves on where
8 The energy goes.
9 Before the energy comes there
10 The Void;
11 Pristine, untainted, pure,
12 Unalloyed:
13 From here flows the force
14 To manifest matter
15 As a dust mote, a cloud,
16 Some petals that scatter.
17 These are the shadows of a light
18 From afar,
19 To face that light is to know
20 You who are.

AD

[Phil: C]

All I can ever truly know is that I exist. Everything else is assumption.

I don't know why, but your poem made me think of this:

'A voice cannot carry the tongue and the lips that gave it wings' - Kahlil Gibran.

[jobsaboba]

Wow, someone who understands some of this. In my experience, that makes you a very rare person.
Lonely? Not half. I understand "no one to discuss it with" only too well. When you understand something that the general population does not, you end up feeling like the strange one. I go fishing (metaphorically) with anyone that seems likely to understand. There are five basic points, most peoples eyes glaze over before I get to number three


yes: they seem to catch loads n i go home with bugger all lol

Patents? What I have done is crystallise the understanding in a specific set of mathematical/logical formulae. That is patent-able. If someone patented a torch but did not patent the battery, the person who then patented the battery would have prior claim over the torch patent as it would not work without the battery. In the same way, these formulae patent meaning and symbolism and so have prior claim over any written or symbolic form. At least, that is the theory.


two men sitting each side of a table, pound coin stood on its edge in middle of table.
both men argue for eternity, that the side they see is right.
man comes up turns the coin round !
both men argue for eternity, that the side they see is right.
man comes up takes coin away.............oh!!! what shall we argue about now ?


AD

regards

jobs

[ArturoDekko]

Aravat - nice quote. The Lazy Mans Guide?
If you put your claim of existence with your previous comment on existence, then you too are eternal.
There is more you can say with certainty:
I exist.
I exist relative to something. That is, something else exists as well otherwise you would not know you exist.
That relativity is also a thing.
There is a specific difference between you and the thing you are relative to, a fourth thing.
These four things form an inseparable whole which is a fifth thing.

These five thing form what could be called a nugget of existence which itself exist and so can be put back into the formula. Nugget + related other + relationship + difference + their unity = Bigger nugget. ad inf.

Here is the same argument a little more systematically:
Essentially, what I have done is defined the minimum unit of existence and then followed the undeniable consequences of that. This can be shown in many ways, here is just one.
Here goes: Start by imagining nothing and into that nothing put something. That something has no qualities as yet, no dimensions, it is a zero point. We call this point A. The first recognition here is that there can be no existence without something to exist relative to, so if A exists, there must be a B such that A ≠ B. Now you should have two points labelled A and B. Two points define a line and this line represents the dimension which relates A to B. This line is the third thing, C, in this definition. Now recognise that the two points are separate on the line by a distance. That difference is the fourth thing, D. Now recognise that these four things are inseparable, no thing can exist without these four components, that these four things are a unit and that unit is the fifth thing, E, such that A + B + C + D = E. The Absolute plus the Binary plus the Connection plus the Difference equals the Envelope.
Now we return to the beginning and recognise that A could never have been a dimensionless point and must always have been a unit as just described, composed of four things, and that it must be an infinitesimal point. Following through the same logics repeatedly will define an infinitesimal point of increasing complexity. Here we access the magic of the infinitesimal: Any summation of infinitesimals will always be an infinitesimal and any infinitesimal is always infinitely divisible. Do I need to explain the relevance of Godel here?
I will pause here to gauge your reaction. I am hoping you will recognise that what I have said is undeniable and must always be true. When I got to this point, I suddenly realised that is means this and this... and the complete logics unfolded before me over a period of time.
That is a partial view of the first line of logic regarding existence. There are four more lines; change, cyclicity, resonance and pattern.

jobsaboba -
Any understanding can be found within The Foundation but The Foundation cannot entirely be found within any other understanding. This is the trump card.

AD