HomeReciprocal System Discussion

Reciprocal System Discussion

The following are excerpts from discussions on the RS2 forum and mostly concerns the philosophical context of ideas in the scientific underground:

 

In esoteric philosophy the inner worlds are organized differently than the material world. In fact RA specifically uses the RS theory terms describing them this way, saying that the time/space perspective native to the “inner planes” sees many possible worlds in overview where as space/time we can work to integrate them. Aurobindo calls the two sectors involutionary and evolutionary. Seth calls them the probability system and the reincarnational system. In any case as we know, they are not really completely separate sectors. Though in the inner planes, all beings are segmented by vibration rate–like beings are on planes with like beings. Here in the evolutionary/external realm, beings of all types and levels mix. The involutionary planes pass through and interact with us as fields. The picture has always been one of descending involution and ascending evolution at least in terms of complexity. So two streams passing through each other brought to my mind a 180 degree phase relationship.

But perhaps those streams are the directions up and down the axis that divides the sectors at a right angle. Douglass A. White talks about the phase wave and the matter wave in similar ways to RS:  http://www.dpedtech.com/VelocityEquation.pdf He makes good analogies for seeing that reciprocal of normal velocity as not just some invisible sector, but essential to what mind is always doing: getting an overview perspective by stepping into that orthogonal dimension and making correlations in an abstract phase space. It is actually a popular trend in academic theory when studying complex systems to think of any emergent higher order structure as being a kind of “phase entity”. A person for instance in his immaterial substance is one of these “phase” entities, and so exerts causal power through this non-local phase dimension, by seeing and making connections between apparent motions that have no localized space time basis at all. Life and Consciousness alter the phase relations and brings that cosmic sector into play with matter. Its not that it is a magical invisible realm, it is the very magic of mind that alters the dimensions of time to achieve effects in space.

In any case I think it helps to see the connections in so many other systems, to see that reciprocal systems thinking is actually a broader tradition than just one eccentric theory. This website just happens to be the place where it is being extended to the deepest levels of physical theory. Though I am still confused about dimensions and degrees of seperation….

If you divide a circle of unity into orthogonal dimensions shouldn’t there be four? 90 degrees times 4? The following has been my amateur intuition– just that when the symmetry of unity is broke the most one can have is three dimensions because the fourth will always have all the remaining order that can never be objectified and so appears as a never ending flow of return, a mirror of all that is repressed in the forced stability of a three dimensional frame.

Arthur M. Young says something kind of like this in his book Mathematics Physics and Reality. He says since 1 point is 0 dimension, with 2 you get a 1 dimensional line, 3 a 2d plane, and 4 a 3d solid. Past that, any additional points are “internal” in that they create diagnals to store information. He says seven is the max points without creating subsets and is the max points on a torus that can be connected without crossing lines.

In any case I have found these ideas help understand the dimensional structure. I am sure I am missing something here and would appreciate any corrections. But I like the idea that 3 dimensions is the max for objectifying the universe with additional dimensions being internal, that create a 7 point structure starting with a reference point, that can reappoach unity through increasing density of internal relations but never obtain it completely, hence the evolutionary progression.

I think it is fair for you to want justification for spending the time it takes to learn the Reciprocal System of Theory, to be convinced that it isn’t just an eccentric theory, but part of a rich culture of ideas–which I think it is. I think it is important to understand that whether or not you accept the particular way the RS system approaches these issues of other sectors or realms, they aren’t conjured up out of nowhere.

Even without diving into esoteric thought, any honest look at mainstream physics confronts one with the seemingly bizarre issues of other realms. In the paper I linked to above by Douglass A. White, he uses the physics concept of phase in an analogous way to the way those here use the cosmic sector. Now one can certainly take the attitude of the physicist that imaginary quantities and the phase aspect of the wave is without content or physical meaning, but I think the appeal to those with a predilection to the occult and spiritual side of existence, is that this reciprocal realm describes that part of reality quite well. In a way it is self-evident to many of us in a way that perhaps would not be to someone who doesn’t take the imagination seriously (or the deeper meaning of imaginary numbers that represent them).

Though many people these days are open to these kind of ideas but get confused by the many diverging theories or by vague, facile generalizations. There is a lot of far out speculation even by mainstream physicists concerning the meaning of the quantum. There are lots of other answers out there, but I think this website has the best physics material in the scientific underground. Admittedly it is difficult and takes time to even grasp the basics. I came upon it years ago in my research but only about 6 months ago did I learn enough to see how rewarding a deeper study would be. I think it helps to get a broader education in alternative culture and ideas to see the full value, and see how much of the best ideas are confirmed or have a form in the RS system, and in contrast how much other attempts at interpreting physical theory are narrow and insular in comparison.

So rather than just say the reciprocal of 3d space is 3d time and it must be that way because it helps explain a lot of physics, I think it helps to situate the physics more philosophically and phenomenologically and say:

Classical physics reached a limit with relativity and quantum phenomenon that brought it into contact not just with “far out” regions as Larson sometimes put it, but with the importance of perspective and the observer in determining the causal order of phenomenon. This wasn’t just a fluke of modern physics but was part of the whole transition from the classical to the Modern and Modernist era. (If you want a more in depth look at this transition and its impact on culture here is an essay I wrote: http://www.creativecoherence.org/2016/0 … d-fiction/)

But I do think framing the cosmic sector as a kind of seperate reciprocal physical realm is misleading. In the details of the theory it is clear that the sectors are part of a larger structure. On the other hand there is much discussion of comsic sector entities like planets and galaxies that are spread out in space but concentrated in time which is taken to mean that it’s like some mirror universe. I think this is a mistake, if only for the way it makes it seem like there is the whole other universe nobody knows about, which I can understand people are skeptical about no matter how well it explains a black hole or whatever. On closer inspection, what seems clear to me is that the cosmic sector and 3d time are not some bizarre idea about a parallel reality we can’t see but about the very substance of our reality that is imbued everywhere with the stuff of time, or if you will, the stuff of mind.

Seen that way, RS theory stands out not in the nature of its objects of study but in its coherence. Quantum electro dynamics has been struggling with virtual realms and time reversals for decades and it isn’t just speculation. It is the only way they can make the ideas work, especially when you get into any phenomenon dealing with phase conjugation, which is key when talking about life. RS theory doesn’t pull some realm out of its hat, it puts the realms physics has been dealing with awkwardly for a 100 years on much more logical and productive ground.

———————

Perhaps what you are experiencing as a circular explanation is bound to happen with such a comprehenisve theory. One weakness in this theory that might be holding it back is a natural product of its strength, or at least natural in this post-modern value climate. Larson conceived it at a time when grand theories had fallen dramatically out of fashion. Post-WW2 theory is characterized by the incredulity towards meta-narratives. One can mourn this loss of coherence, but it was an important turn away from the absolutist rhetoric that lead to the melodramatically violent clash of cultures, and which continued to lend ideological support to the cold war. The last major theorists of the Modernist era had many of the same intuitions of Larson; people like Whitehead and Gebser tried to see in relativity an opportunity to open up the somewhat closed grand systems of the previous era which took perspectival space for granted, into an open system that embraced time and creativity. But in the end it was people like Heidigger following Nietzsche that would influence future theory in his emphasis not just on openness to change and time but on a complete destruction(which becomes deconstruction with Derrida) of metaphysical absolutes. Parallel developments happend in physics as complementarity became the anti-metaphysical and anti-epsitemological doctrine of choice. Grand theories still are put forth of course but they are surrounded by an academic culture of pragmatic utilitarianism that renders them anything but theories of everything. We know enough now to know a complete theory in physics, even if it was possible, is hardly a complete theory of everything.

But another thread after the wars can be followed where the heterogeneous currents set loose by the post-modern turn were coming together in a general science. Emerging out of war time information theory, cybernetics had a lot of similar qualities to today’s scientific underground in that it was developed mostly by engineers outside their professional discipline. They began what has become a thriving trans-disciplinary science culture. Unlike the the grand narratives of the Modernist era, what you have in the interdisciplinary sciences is an openness not just to time and other perspectives, but to a reflexive awareness of the model itself and, of course the modeller. This has had an effect on academic theory through cybernetic writers like Gregory Bateson who influenced the biggest transitional figure from post-modernism to the emerging complexity-science paradigm: Gilles Deleuze. Deleuze has been dead for decades now but he still is the biggest name in Theory, especially where it dovetails with science. The buzzword in Theory that is most relevant here is: virtual. Deleuze’s ontology is materialist, but like RS there is an economy between the actual (material sector), virtual (cosmic sector), and intensive (scalar). But these trends in theory I think still struggle with the concepts of time they have inherited from Bergson. Bergson famously debated Einstein on time, and though his ideas are more radical than Einstein, they only anticipate dimensions of time that are fleshed out more coherently with rs2 and somewhat by others in the scientific underground. Suzie Vrobel’s fractal time and the endophysics her group has developed is an interesting example, though they are more sucessful with observer systems. The fractal has been a particularly fruitful concept for understanding time, and it has leaked through from the controversial physics of el Nasschie and the scale relativity of Notalle down through to the biophysics community with people like Mae Wan Ho and the New Age with people like Dan Winter and Nassim Haramein.

Though most people seem to still struggle to eschew conventional notions of time. One cybernetic theorist that seems closest to the RS system is a particularly esoteric one named Charles Muses. He has a particularly strange and interesting book called “Destiny and Control in Human Systems: Studies in the Interactive Connectedness of Time(chronotopology)” One of his students is a friend of mine here in Oregon who has developed his work in what he called “hypernumbers” into a whole sophisticated algebra of ontological transformation. Quaternions are just the first level in a dialectical progression. It is interesting as far as I can understand it, but so many of these developments launch off from shaky fundamentals. RS theory I think has got the core principles right that can bring other things into focus. Larson was writing from the perspective of a classical scientist and like other heroes of the scientific underground, because he was reacting to the direction post-classical science was taking, he often is described and understood in reactionary terms. If we are going to take these ideas out of the basement they have to shed neo-classical language that most theorist use. There are many good ideas out there, but with the RS theory and in particular the culture of RS2 here, the retro ether theories of post-tesla people like Dollard and much of the New Age scene with its probelmatic reification of “consciousness” can be put on the same ground as other general systems science theory. The key theme that I see in this context would be that Larson was seeing an advanced reciprocal relation between objective and subjective dimensions, but putting it in the language of classical physics that he knew–with some modifications. Everyone here has done a great job of teasing out the radical ideas and making them explicit. Projective Geometry has long been an obsession of the esoteric science community without a whole lot of understanding as to its concrete meaning beyond the sensed need to integrate the oberver and the modeller into the model. Now we can perhaps see how to do this and can begin to integrate other perspectives with that in mind. But by integrate, I mean connect to, reflect and illuminate, not co-opt and consume. There have been other attempts at integration in the alternative contemporary theory world –like Ken Wilber, Spiral Dynamics, and other New Age spins on systems theory. They become cults and I think people are becoming sensitive to and distrustful of anything resembling an insular system or theory. And if some of what is discussed in the alternative research community is correct, the groups that have developed this science well beyond us are very much cults and totalitarian break away societies. We don’t just need to figure out how free energy works, we need a sophisticated and heterogeneous society that can handle it. Thankfully the ideas here are ripe with potential for bringing coherence without closure. Its all about the nature of the reference frame, and how it structures and interfaces with the universe.

——————————-

Rather than discuss how many dimensions the universe has, which is a pretty absolutist metaphysical framing, I think it more appropriate to say how do a certain number of dimensions structure the universe? In that way the relative and absolute aspects of nature are both put in context. I think what RS concepts are showing, which is, again, echoed by others, is that there at most three spatially objective dimensions. When we objectify the universe we deform it and reduce it down. If we want to see more of the picture we have to add internal dimensions, interiority, virtuality, vitality, mentality, etc… we store memory of time, — we add temproal dimensions.

What is the nature of a reference frame that objectifies the very parts of the universe that we have chosen to bracket and internalize? I tend to turn to occult literature here, though the RS concepts shed much light on it. I don’t think the two sectors are the same. Actually I was implying they were more different than RS theory suggests. But yes I think they are part of one world, which I am sure most would agree with.

————————————————-

Sorry if I was not more explicit, but I was saying that there are many ways of talking about moving in 3d time, most of which have been in the occult traditions where the language is different, but I think it is clear it is the same thing. Daniel’s papers develop the connections along a few of these lines, where time becomes a full 3d landscape in the sense that different timelines can be explored objectively the way we would explore different paths through space. I was assuming you were familiar with this description and considered your objection was more that it was too far out and unprecedented–which was my initial reaction after hearing David Wilcock talk about it. David is doing good work, but in his simplifications he can alienate those with a little more scrutiny. I avoided the RA material for years after hearing his take on it. Much like the related material here, I found when I got around to reading it myself it is quite sophisticated. It merely gives a more scientific language to what occultists have been discussing for ages as “inner planes” of existence that RA specifically equates with the RS concept of time/space, the cosmic sector.

My larger point was that though one can access the full three dimensionality of time through inner occult training, we need not look any further than the everyday functions of mind to see some of the same effects. And though physics stopped short of exploring mind when it reached its boundaries in quantum physics, other branches of science have picked it up and developed a scientific language for dealing with the relationship of mind and matter, often coming up with concepts that echoe RS theory perspectives. Even physics has been dealing with this “virtual” domain in QED, or “antimatter” in particle physics, though they exclude the connections with consciousness.

But if you want not just a description, but an experience, try lucid dreaming, astral travel, or just smoke some cannabis. Or just let your mind contemplate time and feel its texture, its potential to move in many directions. The best descriptions of time are in the book Seth Speaks and the Unknown Reality by Jane Roberts. But as RA says the advantage of time/space is in the overview experience, yet it is here in space/time that we can work on the details in the present. Smoke some pot and see you can get a kind of bird’s eye perspective on your life but you can’t make any real deep changes until you come down into the body and work “in the dark with a candle”, which is roughly how RA puts it. When you dream, you can go anywhere, anytime, either in a single abstract dimension in the mind or with practice with the astral body or even fully materializing a physical body as advanced beings do. But it is here in our sector that we can wake up. The traditions are clear that the “inner planes” tend to be stagnant and abstract. It is here that the abstract structures of the mind (causal) and life (astral) and subtle physical (etheric), all form a unified medium, a stable spatial reference system, that allows for greater growth and change. So whenever you hear “3d time” I would think 3d mind or more generally, 3d structure; think of a dream space that has become objectified but that lacks the concrete pressure of difference that being in a 3d material space, with all its limitations, involves.

——————————————–

“Fuzzy” is what most of the quantum theory speculations make of reality. There is even a “fuzzy” logic to go along with it. RS theory is simple and coherent by comparison, at least in the sense that everything is analogically connected to everything else, rendering every phenomenon a reflection of every other since they are all built up of the same structures of motion. The universe obviously has some complex structures in it, but in RS they are still just aggregates of the simple fundamental motions that make up everything.

You are right to point to the oberver as a source of complication and complexity, but this isn’t to say we are obfuscating some simple objective structure with the incoherence of our subjectivity. In order to collapse that complexity down to simple relationships, we would have to close off reality from novelty and difference. Absolute coherence depends on a completely deterministic structure. Any open system will have elements that seem random from within and which consequently prevent information from being compressed down to simpler algorithms. Any sophisticated formalism ends up being incoherent or incomplete. That is the nature of the mind and the world that is formed by it, which is the only world we know. The scalar domain or the absolute motion of the universe beyond our reference frames may be without the difficulties, conflicts and ambiguities of our relative worlds, but the coherence of unity is singular and without any structure to speak of. To get any perpsective on unity we have to build up symmetry through the murky waters of difference. We have to talk to each other and listen and think in different ways. We have to find and create a coherence that connects intuitively with that scalar motion, to the true motion and meaning of every process, which may be the complete opposite of the appearence in our organism-specific reference system. What is space and what is time? Where ends the meaning, where begins its context?

I think RS theory is remarkably coherent but it is in the process of shedding its original fundamentalism and applying its powerful logic of reciprocity to what quantum theory has been struggling with for generations: to move beyond an objectivist rendering of a complex indeterminate world and become a practical science of understanding the symmetries of transformation and applying them. Rather than breaking up the world trying to figure out some fundamental parts, ideas are emerging to show us how to perform transformations that create “quantum coherence”, that create symmetries that can localize the non-local, condense and unify difference, and render the most complex system accessible to the simplest analogy or being.

———————————————————-

I am not sure I follow you here. You seem to be conflating the speed of the light and the frequency of light. In both the mainstream and the RS, a photon has a constant linear speed and variable frequency. In the RS, they are thought of as the progression in one scalar dimension (which includes the linear motion of the photon) and the frequency of the photon’s oscillation in another dimension. The whole RS only makes sense if the photon’s linear speed remains constant. It can’t be different speeds since it is the only thing constant by which we judge the speed of everything else. It’s the lynchpin of the whole system.

Sheldrake uses the fact that light speed has varying speeds in certain measurements to argue for his theory that the laws of physics are just habits that evolve. I sympathize with his desire to undermine what in the philosophy of science is called the “nomological” paradigm, which undergirds any talk of “laws”. But he doesn’t really seem aware of the physics behind variable light speed measurements which have to do with the properties of the medium. Everything in some sense is light modulated through different reference systems (and their corresponding “mediums”), which create different speed ranges. Even in the mainstream, they explain what appears as variable light speed measurements in terms of its interaction with a medium. It is only in an absolute vacuum that it remains constant, which is something of an ideal limit rather than a real property of space which always has some interactive properties, even if they are considered “virtual”.

Obviously light waves have different frequencies and it IS quite natural to assume different occult planes would have different frequencies or at least speed ranges clustered around certain levels of frequency/energy.

But with RA’s concept of densities things are a bit more complex, because we are not dealing with single frequencies or speed ranges of energy, but with the complexities of organisms. Densities are not the same as planes in RA’s cosmology, but more of a measure of degree in complexity, which I read as including an increasing variety of speeds/frequencies as density increases. Every living thing in RS terms has both high speed and low speed motion since life is a compound of structures in both sectors.

Even in everyday science there is no single frequency for even the most basic material particles or structures. This gets into the whole Fourier uncertainty principle that touches on the heart of this question of variable light speeds: in order to have a localized spatial object with a definite place in space and time, you have to have an uncertain/potentially infinite amount of different frequencies that compose it. see: http://www.dpedtech.com/VelocityEquation.pdf
and:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/principle_of_minimal_stimulus.php

So matter, by nature, has multiple frequencies. Energy we can experience as having a single frequency, but in the cosmic sector where you also have complex structures with definite positions in multiple dimensions of motion, you can also have densities. Density actually makes a lot of sense as a measure of complexity and evolution since the more frequencies you superpose in your being the more quantum coherent you are; that is, the more precise and concentrated your motion is, the more frequencies and therefore the more energy you have active in your being.