7/16/2019 8:15 a.m.
Sitting outside, tuning in. I have been thinking about some more on seeing reality at different scales. Before we said, it really is one continual thing, one whole. But then I also got this world:
Scope: it really means “target,” from IE *skop: “to look, observe.”
So whenever we look, and live, within this whole, we are experiencing a different scope. And we can, through technical means, change the scope: with a microscope and telescope, looking up and down the scale of reality.
So that’s what I would like to talk about, scope. The scope of experience. So, Club?
The Club: We are here. All too technical, cerebral.
It is always a whole. When you use a microscope or telescope… – Just give it a minute – relax, sink in deeper. [Pause, I was getting a bit anxious, because this answer did not go where I expected it, and I tensed up. Relaxing, tuning in, and then it continues as if there was no break:]
… you still look at the word with the perception you have: fragments. So instead of seeing wholeness, you keep seeing fragments. Microscope: cells, atoms. Telescope: planets, suns, galaxies. All still interpreted as fragments. All these tools still isolate out “parts” (at bests), or fragments. Scopes, scales, whatever, still show only slices of the whole. They do not show you the whole, but as you would say “layers,” at best.
But all IS one, we cannot stress this enough, and these tools hide this, because you look through these tools with a perception set to this scale, which, as we said, is necessary for the experience of separation, which is necessary, for learning, experiencing.
So you cannot find the whole with tools built for seeing isolation.
But a telescope goes up the scale? We see that we are part of a greater whole?
Yes and no. it just shows you the next layer, scale, scope: we are part of a planet, a solar system, a galaxy. Then what? The universe? Infinite? So with these tools you cannot grasp the whole. Your minds, your brains, cannot grasp the notion of wholeness – unless experienced once, as it was 20 years ago. And what was that like? Layers?
No! More like a hologram. Each part containing the whole, and vice versa.
Exactly! Completely different! Scales and scopes and all that are just ways of the 3D mind to explain its environment, but ultimately it fails that way.
So what would be a better access point? And do these layers not exist?
Yes, they do conceptually. Clearly, you exist at some scope, some way that consciousness exists. And it is clear that other ways, other layers, also “exist.” And some layers may be more conscious. But really, it is an artificial separation created purely for the purpose of learning.
As far as an access point, the notion of the hologram is better, but still flawed. You have been thinking about it, for years, so you want to state it?
OK, first, a hologram still implies the notion of the view of an observer, from a given viewpoint. You can only see the object from the outside, but the hologram never shows the observer, his/her reflection. So it is a representation of 3D space as seen from my standpoint [the observer], but not from the object’s standpoint. So it is better, but limited.
Exactly, it can only be, at best, an analogy.
The other one is that a hologram is created using wave interference in 3D space. So it is implicitly in 3D space, creating a snapshot of that space, as seeing in the wave(s) of the mechanical setup.
Yes, so it is still spatial. And those are the limitations. Yet as far as a model, far better than whatever a microscope or telescope gives you, which is “just” parts and fragments. In that way, you end up with a sort of mechanical view of the universe, which, yes, includes fields, but still is mechanical. You cannot get the wholeness.
In the hologram, the idea of wholeness is implicit, albeit only in a limited way.
So, what happens if you zoom in on a hologram?
I am not sure, you see all the parts again, but as you go down [or break off a piece], it is loosing resolution.
Because the limits of the medium.
I just got Escher’s “the Print Gallery” [ a famous image by M.C. Escher]. Not just that, but how that university expanded it,* and solved the white spot, and it all wrapped around infinitely.
*[ Escher and the Droste Effect, University of Leiden, Netherlands http://escherdroste.math.leidenuniv.nl/ ]
And that’s where you have to go. This image is one of the best examples of wholeness.
Thank you. I will review it, so we can talk about it. OK, I have to admit, this went into a completely different direction than I thought it would have.
Glad to help [ laughing ]
Until next time.
Namaste — I bow to you and the Divine in you.
Copyright © Hanns-Oskar Porr