5/2/2019 5:50 a.m.
The Club: Go have some coffee first. [smiling]
[and that's what I did... ] Are you here?
Of course we are.
I am sort of in a strange mood today.
That last dream ended with an unresolved situation.
“Unresolved,” I used that in my book (the Steps of Essence), related to “dissolve.”
Go look it up.
[I got the book and checked] Yes, I did. It originally meant to loosen. “To solve” was to loosen. Hmmm. I have been thinking on the problem of the “root of being” (time, existence). It’s hard to solve. I see a theme coming for this discussion. What do you have to say on this? If not anything, then it is OK, I am kind of tired…
There are two ways to solve. You either concentrate hard, hard, hard. Thereby “harden” your thought. Or you just let go and step back. And the answer sometimes just comes to you. Out of the subconscious.
It is like the image you just had: “annealing.” You knew from your AI studies, many years ago, that neural nets try to find the best solution, but to find it they get stuck in local minimums [as opposed to the global minimum, the optimal solution]. To break out of this, a process of “annealing” is used, in which you “pump” some more energy into the system to let “the ball” break out of the minimum and it is free again to find a better solution, using a gradient (look it up) towards the global minimum.
Now, I think you readers did not understand all that, so let us/me/you say it simpler. To solve, you sometimes have to loosen first before re-tighten, that is, to concentrate.
It is a movement of thought: Relax – tighten ( - repeat ).*
*[ A better term that came to me afterwards would be: contraction - expansion. It really goes into a bigger pattern, which I am starting to suspect is universal: the singular vs the whole; individual and community; particle and wave. More on was later written on in "The Pulse of Being". But this morning, “relax” had a certain meaning, as shown in the next few lines.]
By relaxing, you are able to add more auxiliary information and let “your subconscious” find new connections. So the worst thing to do is to stay tight/concentrated for too long.
Is that me just making this up?
So you are telling me to just relax?
Well, this morning, you are tight. Why don’t you go wake up your son first and that will clear that worry from your mind.
OK. [I woke up my son for school. After that I looked up "gradient," from ‘grade’, "to step, walk ]
Just ask the question you REALLY want to ask.
OK: What is i = √-1 ? [pause....] And now nothing is coming…
Because you are tightening up! It is just like Frank said: then there is anxiety, and we cannot get through anymore. Because you feel, OK, now nothing comes and you are making it all up. And we don’t exist. You go through exactly what he goes through.
So what am I to do?
You need to learn to just trust yourself. EVEN MORE THAN YOU ALREADY DO. AND NOT DOUBT. Because, as you know, doubt splits. But you need to stay whole in the process.
So: √-1 ?
It’s just a concept. There is nothing magical about it. The problem, really, is ALL numbers. They take something whole and break it apart.
It is really a sort of quantization of wholeness. Exactly the same as what your physicists tell you. No, don’t drift, stay with us.
And that really led to √-1 . Because even negative numbers are just a concept. Of taking something simple [whole] and tearing it apart.
So, you are saying that there is nothing metaphysical about science? It is all real?
No, that’s not it. Science does describe the beyond, but does not even know it.
I am drifting…. [I stopped. Too tired this morning. Go lay back down a bit longer. ]
Commentary, written up a few days later (5/4/2019):
So what I got out of this is that the problem with the imaginary number, i = √-1 , goes much deeper. Yes, you can see it as connecting with the metaphysical, as I wrote about here, but really the whole concept of numbers taken as a whole does so as well. √-1 is just taking the whole concept of numbers to its logical conclusion.
This really is a deep subject in philosophy, which asks: Are numbers real? What really is their basis? Some argue yes, others no, and many great thinkers, chimed in on this.
I had followed the white rabbit to its logical end, to “the imaginary.” But this dialogue traced the white rabbit back to where it started: 0 and 1. Really, the white rabbit goes much deeper.
I did not see it that way before. Maybe subconsciously, I thought that the negative numbers are already something peculiar, if you stop to think about it, but I had gotten so used to them that I did not see it. Like we all have.
This dialogue brought it out. The strange thing is, as soon as it was stated by "The Club", or my inner subconscious or whatever, I knew it was right. No argument. Nothing. I just accepted it as so. That's what I would call an insight.
Namaste — I bow to you and the Divine in you.
Copyright © Hanns-Oskar Porr