Has qaballa been overtaken by science?

Dulcimer

Well, that's told me!

I'll take a little time to take in (and figure out) what all that means, gather my incontravertable evidence, and shoot you down in flames. Again. :D

I'LL BE BACK!

[Thanks for the link Heavensvault]
 

Rainbow Aurora

Thanks Dulcimer

Dulcimer said:
The Kabbalistic scientific world is shrinking.
If there was a middle from which to veer right or left,
up or down, even with something relative to rotation,
kabbalah might have a 'scientific' reference to gauge.
But~it is the precious stuff of folklore and mythology.
 

venicebard

(He's ba-ack)

Dulcimer said:
Even the well known Hermetic saying "as above, so below" is no longer as true as it was in this age of Relativity vs Quantum mechanics.
I should think it would be considered more true now that the concept of the hologram is a familiar one, for it is simply a statement of its principle.
Although, rather like the now outmoded Newton and Euclid, a case can be made for it in the short term.
To continue: sorry, I should never have let that Newton and Euclid comment slip by. This is really the crux of the matter: how long will nihilist sensationalism (which is really all cosmology and relativism have become) manage to continue to block human progress.

Newton was temporarily doubted, hardly unseated, and has been completely vindicated (by Beckmann’s work, for one thing). His detractors were and are motivated more by the sensational than the rational, although Einstein himself and early followers may have actually thought they were being rational: but later generations of ‘relativists’ have revealed themselves to be doctrinaire worshipers of the sensational, always touting the ‘anti-intuitive’ as if that were now the touchstone—poppycock!

Euclid’s ‘shakiness’ is from a more nefarious cause, in a sense, and is what led Einstein (or his wife, the mathematician) astray in the first place (in its Riemannian guise). It was the hair-brained notion of some mathematicians of unsound mind in the 19th century. If you actually study the history of the development of ‘non-Euclidean geometry’ (as I have), you will see that it is completely anti-intuitive from the start: the idea that, well, maybe the four angles of a quadrangle don’t add up to exactly 360 degrees, and other such obvious dribble—specifically, it not only rejects what it claims Euclid should have proven and didn’t but what he did prove. For example, Euclid did prove that parallel lines don’t meet: it was the idea that non-parallels do meet (on a given side) that he saw no need to prove (nor do I, but I proved it for my own edification anyway, using a simple shortcut from a later book of Euclid, whereas my late uncle also rigorously proved it, without using said shortcut).
Dulcimer said:
I'll take a little time to take in (and figure out) what all that means, gather my incontravertable evidence, and shoot you down in flames. Again. :D

I'LL BE BACK!
It’s nice to see somebody trying to put up a fight. (even if it’s only a well-armed cyborg). But I don’t recall being shot down yet: did I miss something?
Rainbow Aurora said:
If there was a middle from which to veer right or left,
up or down, even with something relative to rotation,
kabbalah might have a 'scientific' reference to gauge.
But~it is the precious stuff of folklore and mythology.
The first part of what you say is unintelligible to me: could you specify what it is you think lacks a middle?

As for the second part, Hamlet’s Mill (by some people with very difficult names) shows how much mythology is permeated by numbers that have specific significance to advanced astronomy, showing that myth was one repository of science.

The main point really is that folklore and mythology, because they embody archetypes, are precious. For example, I hope no-one here thinks the four elements are just some outmoded concept: they must form the basis of any sound science of nature, simply because they are (and can be shown necessary in so many ways). That man’s hand has four fingers and a thumb is a direct result of there being four elements and a soul, their quintessence. The senses themselves reflect the elements: sight fire, hearing air, taste water, and contact (smell and touch) earth. In geometry: point, line (2 pts.), angle (3 pts.), solid (4 pts.). In origin, they are: that which is entirely active or radial; that which is more active or radial than passive or centripetal; that which is more passive or centripetal than active or radial; and that which is entirely passive or centripetal—all four together (unified by the soul), they ultimately (once the soul is perfected) form the balanced state. And there is also the discrete set of four wheels or rounds seen by Ezekiel: one centered atop the head of standing Adam Qadmon, one atop that of seated Adam (male-female), one at Adam’s heart (zodiac of the torso), and one representing the womb—the present (the physical universe) or instant of creation (womb of time)—each half the height of its predecessor. I hope all present give sufficient weight to these facts.
 

AmounrA

hhmm.. but.

Earth,Air,Fire & water could also be seen as:

Earth =solid
Air =Gas
water =Liquid
Fire =Plasma

Also why give water to taste? water is known for its lack of one.

As for goemetry , surly two points would always have an angle of 180 degrees.
Three points forms a plane.However i see no reason why if we introduce the curve
you cant have a solid with two points..i.e the rugby ball.

"And there is also the discrete set of four wheels or rounds seen by Ezekiel:
one centered atop the head of standing Adam Qadmon, one atop that of seated
Adam (male-female), one at Adam’s heart (zodiac of the torso), and one representing
the womb—the present (the physical universe) or instant of creation (womb of time)—
each half the height of its predecessor. I hope all present give sufficient weight
to these facts."
To be honest this is the type of statement I started this thread for.
These are not facts but dreams.Dreams that I would suggest are interesting in an historical
sense, but which can take a serious seeker of ,shall we say, enlightenment, no where.If this
historical approach is to be taken, I would suggest Tibetan Buddism has more to offer than
Kabbalah.To me the tree of life holds up to current discoveries & theories.But needs to move on.
Adam Kadmon is yesterdays step, as are straight lines. think string :)

I would argue that no one and nothing stops human progress
. We are all born free, live free and die free.Regardless of any outside distraction.

(sorry if i say this then vanish for a while)
 

Fulgour

Rainbow Aurora said:
If there was a middle from which to veer right or left,
up or down, even with something relative to rotation,
kabbalah might have a 'scientific' reference to gauge.
But~it is the precious stuff of folklore and mythology.
Hello :) Rainbow Aurora! Thank you very much!



venicebard said:
The first part of what you say is unintelligible to me:
could you specify what it is you think lacks a middle?
It's pretty clear the reference here is to kabbalah.
And more than just 'lacking a middle' what I see is
that an essential reference is what is suggested...
no up or down, right or left, in or out, or middle. :)
 

venicebard

Parry, riposte, thrust!

AmounrA said:
Earth,Air,Fire & water could also be seen as:

Earth =solid
Air =Gas
water =Liquid
Fire =Plasma
Sure. And point-line-angle-solid, and active, active-passive- passive-active, passive, hence centrifugal, more centrifugal than centripetal, more centripetal than centrifugal, and centripetal, also vertical (active), more-vertical-than-horizontal, more-horizontal-than-vertical, and horizontal (passive). Also: the radiant (electric in nature), the turbulent (weak nuclear force), the cohesive (strong nuclear force), and the massive (gravitation), with heat being radiant-turbulent (fire-and-air) and magnetism cohesive-massive (water-and-earth). And of course: fire-photon, air-lepton, water-meson, and earth-baryon.
Also why give water to taste? water is known for its lack of one.
Because things have to be in solution to be tasted.
As for goemetry , surly two points would always have an angle of 180 degrees.
Three points forms a plane.However i see no reason why if we introduce the curve
you cant have a solid with two points..i.e the rugby ball.
Here you simply miss the point: it takes at least two points to determine a line, at least three to determine an angle or triangle, at least four to determine a solid figure, that is, by the axes these determine. Your objection introduces another subject, rather than addressing the one commented upon.
These [VB’s description of Ezekiel’s 4 wheels] are not facts but dreams.Dreams that I would suggest are interesting in an historical
sense, but which can take a serious seeker of ,shall we say, enlightenment, no where.
It has taken me a long way towards understanding reality, and I will posit my understanding against that of the Ph.D.s any day of the week.
If this
historical approach is to be taken, I would suggest Tibetan Buddism has more to offer than
Kabbalah.To me the tree of life holds up to current discoveries & theories.But needs to move on.
If you mean the current discussion of the ToL in general, I would agree. But the original Kabbalists had a much deeper grasp of reality than their modern imitators, a fact which I, a non-Jew, have to point out to them?
Adam Kadmon is yesterdays step, as are straight lines. think string :)
Consider (forget your silly strings for a minute): Plato’s Forms are balked at because it is weak to say there is an eternal Form for every distinct fly-by-night species that happens to evolve in the animal, plant, or mineral kingdom. But with Adam Qadmon this problem is solved completely, and all units making up the universe are seen as tending to, or seeking, the One Form teleologically, namely Upright Sentience. I’ll take such a view over academic nihilism any day of the week . . . or did I use that expression already?
I would argue that no one and nothing stops human progress
. We are all born free, live free and die free.
It is for this very reason that I do not believe the mainstream a hundred years from now will still consider Einsteinian relativism valid and Newtonian-Maxwellian physics outdated. And it is for this reason that I believe the Qabbalah—the real thing—will ‘catch on’ once enough enquiring minds have had it pointed out to them—and many such enquiring minds may be rabbis!
 

AmounrA

"And of course: fire-photon, air-lepton, water-meson, and earth-baryon." Why do these connect? I dont see the connection.
"Because things have to be in solution to be tasted" Call it liquid, instead of water. Does taste exist if there was nothing to detect it?

"Here you simply miss the point: it takes at least two points to determine a line, at least three to determine an angle or triangle, at least four to determine a solid figure, that is, by the axes these determine. Your objection introduces another subject, rather than addressing the one commented upon"

I dont think i have. I think this is word play. Inflate the line and you have a solid figure with two points.Not a platonic solid<but what does that matter.Universe is far more likely to be such a "solid" than a platonic one. Sure you need four points to form a tetrahedron, or six straight lines at correct 3d angles.It can also be three points folded,triangle, will form a solid.

"Consider (forget your silly strings for a minute): Plato’s Forms are balked at because it is weak to say there is an eternal Form for every distinct fly-by-night species that happens to evolve in the animal, plant, or mineral kingdom. "

I dont think string theory is stupid or mine. Science is looking deep into the "reality" of the fabric of universe. Science is not a solid thing, it evolves and grows. I would fully expect it to have evoved a lot more in 100 years.

I would almost suggest that sitting out in nature, with a book on the current discoveries at the leading edge of the science search light,a map of the tree of life with no text and a bag of mushrooms(dont shoot:)) will take you further than years of kabbalistic study. I don't think its really that complicated. Noting can't come from nothing.

"And it is for this reason that I believe the Qabbalah—the real thing—will ‘catch on’ once enough enquiring minds have had it pointed out to them"

The qabbalah is only one way. People can find there own truth without it. Meditating on anything will do it. Its not like its hiding. My point is only long winded, complex medieval explainations are perhaps now unneeded.
 

Umbrae

AmounrA said:
My point is only long winded, complex medieval explainations are perhaps now unneeded.
YES!!!

That's a good point. One of the wisest I've seen here in a long time. :smoker:
 

venicebard

Parry, thrust, advance!

AmounrA said:
"And of course: fire-photon, air-lepton, water-meson, and earth-baryon." Why do these connect? I dont see the connection.
Natural order of elements: fire-air-water-earth (active, active-passive, passive-active, passive), obvious from the cycle hot-wet-cold-dry as well as from the ancient definitions, bright-thin-moving (fire), dark-thin-moving (air), dark-thick-moving (water), and dark-thick-still (earth). Order of rest mass in matter: photon (0), electron (1), pi-meson (2-300), proton or neutron (1800+). Electrons are the main lepton in matter and constitute the clouds or atmospheres surrounding atomic nuclei. Nucleons (baryons) are the earthy mass of matter. Pi-meson (of parton-antiparton internal structure) exchange between nuclei (three-parton structure) is the strong nuclear interaction binding like charges together in the nucleus—unless you wish to go over the cliff along with the quark theorists, who believe in forces that do not attenuate with distance, which is utter silliness since a force can be overcome by greater force yet such a ‘force’ cannot (making the concept untenable except in academia, where anything complicated enough makes one forget the basics)—hence the meson (quantum of strong nuclear force) is cohesion in matter, on which form depends, form being the watery principle (waves have form, wind does not). And I presume you yourself can make the photon-fire link.
"Because things have to be in solution to be tasted" Call it liquid, instead of water. Does taste exist if there was nothing to detect it?
Here your words resemble the squirming of a worm out of its element. And by the way, when one is considering the four states of ordinary matter (energy-gases-liquids-solids), liquids are the watery member of the sequence; but ‘in solution’ in this context I believe means dissolved in water, not in, say, oils.
. . . I think this is word play. Inflate the line and you have a solid figure with two points.
Yours is the wordplay here.
Not a platonic solid<but what does that matter.Universe is far more likely to be such a "solid" than a platonic one.
(Methinks you have become so lost in string theory’s counter-intuitive universe that you have forgotten how to express things in plain English!)
Sure you need four points to form a tetrahedron, or six straight lines at correct 3d angles.It can also be three points folded,triangle, will form a solid.
Here you trail off into never-never land. You see, you introduce specialized concepts like ‘inflate’ and ‘fold’ rather than remaining within the realm being considered (Euclidean geometry)—it is a little like being charged with making a construction by straight-edge and compass and deciding to bring in ‘computer graphics’.
I dont think string theory is stupid or mine. Science is looking deep into the "reality" of the fabric of universe.
A more accurate description would be that it is looking into the reality of the fabric of its own neuroses. (I notice you ignore all talk of Forms.) Aside from the fact that string theory supposedly seeks ‘simplicity’ or ‘elegance’ (ala Brian Greene) yet ends up with a more hideously complex and complicated mass of mathematical assumptions than I could have come up with to satirize it (again ala Brian Greene), it is rooted in the idea of its being necessary to reconcile quantum theory with Einsteinian relativity, a fool’s errand since the second of the two is provably irrelevant to a sound physics. It is important to comprehend that the present instant is the physical universe, something Einsteinists would deny, and that ‘fire’, meaning the electric or radiant, comes first starting both from the very small and the very large—energy is at the core of every micro-particle, and plasma radiation is the substance of and reason for the very large. For this latter, one must know enough to jettison worship of gravity and stop expecting its ‘second coming’ in the form of finding the other 90% of the mass big-bangism’s priesthood desperately needs to make its equations work (which they call dark matter for the same reason moderns who have lost gnosis call it 'mysticism': to paper-over ignorance).
The qabbalah is only one way. People can find there own truth without it. Meditating on anything will do it. Its not like its hiding.
Well, actually, it is, I would say, or science would not have gone so astray. Newton searched a lifetime for prisca sapientia (pristine understanding man has lost through his decline) and managed to find the laws of gravity and motion but missed, for example, those of light. Anyway, in order for “meditating on anything” to “do it” what must occur is a clear delineation between what is eternal, what has finite duration, and what has no duration, and this is the heart of the Qabbalah.
My point is only long winded, complex medieval explainations are perhaps now unneeded.
Read mine, then: they are neither complex (considering what they explain) nor long-winded (considering density of content).

Don't take any wooden ideas.