Look up at the dark clear moonless night-time sky. What do we see? Points of light arranged against a deep dark background. I propose that in the points of light we see physical substance, matter, and in the darkness we are looking into the encompassing ethereal realm.
There are certain fundamental processes in the universe, one of which is expansion and contraction. Goethe observed this in plants and in crystallisation out of solution we see a contraction of a substance into its solid state.
Likewise the points of light we see in the night sky are processes of matter condensing out of the surrounding ethereal space. The ethereal creates a void in which matter forms and cosmic space which is void of matter is actually filled with etheric activity.
The processes of expansion and contraction are taking place at all levels, as above, so below. Our physical eyes allow us to see the stars and other heavenly bodies but it takes more than physical senses to see the etheric.
Could you expand on ethereal?
Visible light is only a part of the electromagnetic spectrum.The CBM can be detected in every direction.
Not sure if you intended that as a pun. Going by the principle of polarity, physical forces are pointwise, centric. The opposite pole to this are the planewise peripheral forces. The ethereal is purported to be the source of the overarching, dynamic, formative, planar forces which work inwards.
There are the two poles. The classical view of matter was more holistic, they weren’t so interested in analysing matter in such a detailed way which focused on the modern elements. Instead they looked at the four elements of earth, water, air and fire. Each level is less contracted and more expansive than the previous one.
Between the material pole and the ethereal pole there is detectable energy. This is the CMB.
Looks like we have another round of phenomenological physics coming up, but … even knowing this does not help me fathom what you have written here.
Why do you say physical forces are “pointwise” and “centric”? What on earth are planar forces and how are they “peripheral, working inwards”?
Corneel, Sounds like Steiner, perhaps.
I see there’s a book by Olive Whicher The Heart of the Matter: Discovering the Laws of Living Organisms which mentions tyhese terms in connection with Goethe and Steiner. See chapter 2. (It’s not very long)
I say they are pointwise because the fundamental forces, weak and strong nuclear, electro-magnetic and gravity are all said to have ranges from a central source.
Plants grow out from the earth against the force of gravity which some have called levity. There are complicated interactions between these forces which contributes to spiralling growth and to the flat forms of some leaves and petals. Also if we look at the human skeleton the limb bones are are long and radial like. The bones of the skull are plate-like forming a dome, and the ribs, pectoral girdle and pelvic girdle are intermediate between these. These bone shapes indicate the combined effects of centric and peripheral forces.
Another indication of these two aspects of reality is the dual nature of subatomic “particles”.
Maybe, but many people have taken his work and ideas further.
Why?
Is anyone going to tell CharlieM about Michelson and Morley?
It is not energy that rays out from a centre, nor is it energy that rays in from the periphery. It Is the background radiation which pervades space.
The ether of physics was proposed as the static medium through which light waves were supposed to travel in the same way as sound waves travel through matter. I am talking about a dynamic formative principle which bears no resemblance to this.
From Steiner:
From Robert B. Laughlin
The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.
That’s like telling a 5 year old that Santa Claus isn’t real.
Then explain this. If Santa Claus isn’t real, where did my 3 pairs of new socks come from?
From CharlieM …
The ethereal is purported to be the source of the overarching, dynamic, formative, planar forces which work inwards.
And this was part of an explanation.
CharlieM:
Here’s the material pole. For the right price, she’ll show you her ethereal pole.
in crystallization (sic) out of solution we see a contraction of a substance into its solid state.
Uh, really? What I suggest is that the molecules or atoms that become the crystal were dissolved in the solution (or were the solution), and become a crystal by a process of rearrangement, not contraction. When water crystallizes into ice, it expands. If it did not, we wouldn’t be here.
That’s amazing. That Whicher guys writes exactly like Charlie!
I can’t view Chapter 2, but from the foreword and preceding chapter I gather that Rudolf Steiner indeed is a likely source for the polar-centric-planar lingo.
Got it! The physical forces are emanating from the little balls wheras living things are governed by flat-y forces (hope you don’t mind me paraphrasing).
I can sort-a see the reasoning behind that, but it doesn’t work for me. The way you just assimilated cosmic background radiation into your explanatory framework for me was indistinguishable from fabulating, and I am pretty sure I am not the only one who got that impression. So what were you trying to get out of this OP, exactly? Whatever it is, you will need to explain a lot more to get it. Like KN, the first thing that came to my mind upon reading “ether” was the Michelson-Morley experiment. Clearly, you are talking about something else.
Corneel:
You are not alone.
Of course any other material poles in the vicinity might be drawn out towards her ethereal pole 🙂
I was not claiming a hard and fast rule, I was stating the general case. You point out an exception to the norm which demonstrates that water is a very special fluid that, because of its unusual qualities, allows for formation of life. So thank you for pointing that out.
The classical elements are; earth (solid), water (liquid), air (gas), fire (energy), quintessence (ether).
A solid tends to retain its shape determined from its inner structure as in a crystalline lattice. A liquid tends towards the spherical.The molecules have more freedom to move about but surface tension provides a certain amount of containment. A gas tends to expand into any available space, its molecules have more freedom than the liquid state. The energy needed to move up through these stages is absorbed from their surroundings. Here the latent heat is absorbed from the surroundings. Energy working in towards the centre and material substance expanding out towards the periphery as in the case of an ice sheet being melted by the heat of the sun and the resultant water rejoining the hydrological cycle. These processes are a demonstration of the interaction of point centred and peripheral forces and H20 plays a very big part in this.
Well Steiner spoke and wrote in German so I don’t know the exact words that he used. But rather than concentrating on the use of the language what do you think about what is being said?
Thank you Alan for the link to the book
True, which means the those points of bits of electromagnetic radiation visible that you
“propose that in the points of light we see physical substance, matter, and in the darkness we are looking into the encompassing ethereal realm.”
are in a sea of electromagnetic radiation we do not. No more ethereal than the visible light.
This does not mean there is no ethereal realm , it just may it be where you think.
I believe that the atomistic reductionist approach is a one-sided view of reality. Holistic and reductionistic approaches are not opposite because holism encompasses both the reductionist multiplicity and the overarching unity. Holistic thinking sees the polarity inherent in reality.
Experimental evidence shows that nuclear “particles” have a dual aspect. They can be be thought of as minute particles of matter or as energetic entities that cannot be assigned to any particular location in space. Should these findings be taken seriously? I say, yes, and I put out this thread to see what sort of feedback comes in. I want to know what arguments surface against my understanding of polarity and who even understands what its proponents who write books on this subject are saying.
I’ve already mentioned the luminiferous ether which is a different concept to the dynamic ether of the classical elements. The nearest modern science has come to observing this ether is the discovery of the dynamic, energetic nature of the vacuum of space. IMO physical matter is condensed energy.
I don’t believe that it is “in space”, I believe that it “is space”. That is a major difference between the now discredited luminiferous ether and the formative ether that I am proposing.
I see what you mean. I have just read some of the content and she writes this on page twenty:
As far as I can remember this is the first time I have read any of this book, although I have read “The Plant Between Sun and Earth” by George Adams and Olive Whicher.
We are either witnessing the same reality or we are both suffering from the same delusion. I think I can guess the thoughts of each of the participants in this thread as to which answer they would choose.
There’s a much simpler and obvious explanation: you both got that shit from the same source and you’re both parroting that nonsense as if you had “discovered” it independently.
No!! It’s a complete freaking miracle!! Like Jesus and the loaves or Nostradamus.
but…but…but… how do you know that?
Ha! pwned!
CharlieM,
I wonder if the relationship might be expressed as some kind of … I dunno … equation or something? E=m(something something) … just a hunch.
No, I think more like condensed milk.
Darwin and Wallace got their information from the same source, nature. They both carefully observed nature and nature revealed things to them. Now, inspired by the likes of Darwin and Wallace, we can observe and see for ourselves that which was revealed.
You see, we are in some agreement about matter and we both got our shit from the same source, Einstein.
Just as energy contracts into matter processes of contraction and expansion happen at all levels, as above so below.
Watch the video
Secrets of the Cosmic Microwave Background
He gives an account of the expansion of the cosmos and it reaches the stage where matter drawn towards tiny regions of increased density. Baryons are compressed into very dense regions, light and matter are locked together at this time. Pressure build up leads to expansions and light becomes decoupled from matter at the formation of the first atoms. Frozen shells from the expanding acoustic density waves then collapsed into galaxies, the CMB is a product of this process. The number of acoustic oscillations depended on density size and spherical harmonics. Those areas of expansion that were frozen at maximum rarefaction can be picked out in the CMB.
It is a process of expansions and contractions on a cosmic scale. nevertheless it is explained in terms of point-wise forces because peripheral suction forces do not even enter into the speculations and thinking of the average cosmologist, it is not something they contemplate.
Ah! Now I understand the origin of the Milky Way. Thankyou 🙂
Thanks for the clarification.
Maybe peripheral suction forces are similar to dark matter.
We can all become more aware of gravity by sitting in a bath for a while and then lifting a leg out of the water. this demonstrates the heaviness of our leg due to gravity.
Here is a little exercise to demonstrate levity:
Raise one of your arms sideways out from your body to the horizontal position and then lower it back to your side. Now stand sideways against a wall with your arm pressed against the wall. Try to carry out the same movement as you did before by pushing your arm forcefully against the wall as if you intend to raise it to the horizontal in spite of the wall getting in the way. Keep up the pressure for at least half a minute. Now step away into clear space and see what happens. That is levity.
That would make Darwin & Einstein really proud. The future of science looks so bright thanks to geniuses like you
Dark matter causes contraction while dark energy is expansive. So it’s more likely to be dark energy.
Modern science has left alchemy behind in order to delve into the physical. In so doing it has taught us a great deal about the physical world around us. Through this focus we have learned details of the material realm which the alchemists could never know. But this was at a cost.
The alchemists spoke of three principles, salt, sulphur (sulfur) and mercury. Salt is the earthly pole, crystalising, solid, centric; sulphur is the fire pole, expansive, peripheral, ethereal; and mercury is the intermediary, the fluid, the messenger between the two poles. (I found the above site through google in order to give an example of alchemical thinking. I haven’t had a close look at it so I cannot say that I agree with or endorse anything therein.)
Modern science has focused on the salt pole which, because of its more static nature, it is easier to measure and weigh and to deal with mathematically and to quantify. The sulphur pole has to be treated differently, in a more qualitative way but it should not be ignored because of this.
Euclidean geometry is suitable for the salt pole because it freezes the spacial world into a system of set coordinates and so distances and angles can be measured.
The sulphur pole is better dealt with using projective geometry where everything is in relative movement, measurement and size is irrelevant and the changing forms are the important factor. It deals in qualities while Euclidean geometry deals in quantities.
We have advanced far beyond alchemy in one direction, it is time to advance equally in the other direction and in that way achieve a rational understanding of what the alchemists were trying to say with their idea of salt, mercury, and sulphur.
And this brings me to the way modern researchers deal with cosmology. Gravity is factored in but levity is not recognised. The big bang and subsequent expansions and contractions are considered from a position where everything is either pushed out from a centre or drawn in towards a centre. There is no postulation of any drawing out towards a periphery by suction type forces. Look at the image from the video Secrets of the Cosmic Microwave Background” inserted below. The standard thinking is that matter is balanced against energy, the former pulling inwards and the latter pushing outwards. But the calculations don’t add up and there is a vast amount of extra energy required to account for the expansion. Everything is either exploding or imploding.
Newton is supposed to have discovered universal gravity by observing an apple falling from a tree. But did he ask himself how the apple was able to be there in the first place? In truth it was formed by material which was drawn upwards by the heavenly suction forces acting on the plant. We ask how it is that the apple falls but we should also consider how the apple is raised up in the first place.
Here is the pie chart, “just like that” 🙂
Th principles of wet gravity are indeed fascinating.
CharlieM,
Euclid was definitely a salt pole thinker. Too bad, really.
Not sure if you’ve had the experience I’m talking about, after a long soak in the bath lying on your back, you lift one leg out above the water and you can really feel its heaviness more than normal.
If you do know what I’m talking about but just felt like adding a bit of humour that’s fine. Keep practising and one day you will achieve the level of Mung,the master of the one liners 🙂
It’s not bad at all. Euclidean geometry paved the way for us to understand the three dimensional physical world which we are born into and in which we find our bearings. This is why the earth element is represented by a cube with its x, y and z axes. Euclidean geometry is entirely suited to our orientation in the world.
CharlieM,
But just think what he might have accomplished if he”d graduated out of salt! No telling!
Euclid was just the conduit by which general Greek mathematical thinking of that time was gathered together and saved for posterity. The meaning of that which the alchemists came to teach as the salt, sulphur, mercury processes, was instinctively known to the ancient minds, it did not need to be taught. The ancient Greeks wished to gain a better understanding of the physical world and thus they developed their geometry, measuring the earth in relation to humanity. And this is reflected in the salt forming and dissolving processes both within and external to the physical body.
But just as everything evolves and develops in its proper sequence so does mathematics.
Here is Steiner in relation to this:
I know that you want to make light of these processes I have discussed and I don’t mind that. So long as you realise that they can also be taken seriously.
Nope. Got that wrong too.
https://primes.utm.edu/notes/proofs/infinite/euclids.html
So can Zippy the Pinhead.