On 17 Feb, 18:30, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > Pat, the 'energies' found in your meteorite may be life > itself!http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=murchison-meteorite >
Well, my meteorite chunk is a piece of the Campo del Cielo metorite that fell in Argentina and was an iron/nickel meteorite rather than a carbonaceous chondrite like the one mentioned in that article. http://www.meteoritemarket.com/CCinfo.htm I'm not sure, though, where the tektite I have was found, as tektite is formed (for those who don't know!) by the impact of a meteorite (of either type) on soil. The reason I have both in my configuration is because the two concepts are linked. What I'd like to get is a piece of that Libyan glass tektite that was used by the Egyptians for making jewelry that they held to be so powerful. And there's a shop in Oxford that has some pieces of it, but, of course, they're rather expensive. For info about Libyan Glass: http://www.libyan-desert-glass.net/ Even Ol' King Tut (Well, YOUNG King Tut) had one!! The scarab in the photo on the right. http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/detail-coffinette-for-the-viscera-of-tutankhamun-pectoral-with-solar-lunar-emblem-and-scarab.jpg > On Feb 17, 5:49 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 16 Feb, 18:55, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Personally, Pat, I think you're constructing a wonderful artificial > > > structure here, which follows completely conventional analyses of > > > language structures and their written expressions. It might, in the > > > long run, be more productive to investigate the Magnum Opus. Having > > > found the lapis philosophorum, you could then raid the roof of your > > > local church, transmute the lead into gold and thus solve all your > > > financial problems :-) > > > > Francis > > > Perhaps it is artificial. I certainly had nothing to do with > > constructing either language or matter. So, I can only surmise these > > to be natural. Whether they are analogous, well, if so, then that > > would, too, be natural; if they (language and matter) are, in fact, > > artificial, then any semblence between them would be as artificial as > > the things themselves. I have my own Magnum Opus and this is only the > > latest 'chunk' of it. It would take an enormous amount of work to > > demonstrate anything particulary 'useful' from it, though; and I > > realise that. I put it forward because I found the fit to be more > > perfect/analogous than I thought it would be. > > My penury is just a blessing from the Lord that prevents me from the > > trappings of a 'rich man's' life. In other words, if I had a choice > > between having more money than sense or more sense than money, I'd > > take the latter. > > > With respect to the lapis philosophorum, I've got that at home > > 'cooking' at the moment; I call it 'The Eye of Al-Khidr'. I'm just > > waiting for my close friend, Al Ikser, to come by and give it a wash. > > Perhaps Vam has some amrit I could borrow? Or, I could ask Lee; after > > all, Sikh and ye shall find. ;-) > > > And I'm not kidding about 'The Eye of Al-Khidr' stone; that, I DO > > have. 'Tis a beautiful malachite egg (3 inches high by 2 inches wide) > > that has about 96 layers. On one side it has a section that is from a > > nearby layer that grew its layers at a different angle, making it look > > like an eye set into the main piece. When I say it's 'cooking', I > > mean that I have it near a conglomeration of other stones that, if > > there's anything to crystalology, should be powering it up. The other > > stones are: a base of labradorite with the top side only polished. In > > front of that is a raw tiger's eye, which also contacts the meterorite > > (a perfect fit, too! Which is rare for two raw stones). On top > > (polished side) of the labradorite is a configuration of stones: at > > the front, the meterorite (iron/nickel) and at the rear, a tektite on > > the right and a unakite on the left. Resting on the labradorite and > > propped up on the meteorite is a clear, raw quartz crystal that is > > supported from behind by the tektite and the unakite but still rests > > ON the labradorite. Alongside the quartz and touching it, to its > > right, is a raw, green toumaline that also touches the tektite behind > > and the meteorite in front. This configuration is a lovely little > > battery that should be absorbing energies from the meteorite and > > textite, alowing them to be concentrated by the tourmaline and > > clarified by the quartz which points at 'The Eye'. The base of the > > labradorite will reflect 'unwanted' energies and the tourmaline and > > unakite (which are juxtaposed by the quartz) should help focus > > 'desired/desirable' energies into the quartz. Well, that the > > principle behind it. The whole group is flanked by a turquoise and > > seraphinite and a hawk's eye behind. Again, if the theories (of > > crystalology) work, then those stones will guard the rest. I've had > > it 'cooking' since the Vernal equinox last year and it should be ready > > by this Summer solstice. > > > Note: I expect Fiddler, if he reads this, to be absolutely rolling on > > the floor over this and I truly hope he gets great enjoyment from it. > > > With respect to Al-Khidr himself, I take the view as mentioned in the > > Wikipedia entry on him: The function of al-Khiḍr as a 'person- > > archetype' is to reveal each disciple to himself, to lead each > > disciple to his own theophany, because that theophany corresponds to > > his own 'inner heaven,' to the form of his own being, to his eternal > > individuality. On a personal level, I would only hope to serve such a > > function, if God sees it fit that I can be. > > > > On 16 Feb., 14:57, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I thought that, since the concept of ‘The Pen’ had been > > > > discussed, that I might take this opportunity to mention a couple of > > > > things. Firstly, the concept of ‘The Pen’ and how it relates to ‘The > > > > Word of God’ might be obvious to some but not others. It was a > > > > concept that was revealed in the very first Revelation to the Prophet > > > > Mohammed (pbuh). > > > > The first 5 lines of Surah 96 (Al Alaq [the Clot]) were the very > > > > first lines revealed and here they are: > > > > > 96:1 Read! In the name of your Lord and Cherisher, who created > > > > Iqra! Bismi rabbika-lladhi khalaq > > > > > 96:2 Created man from a clot of congealed blood. > > > > Khalaq-al-insana min alaq > > > > > 96:3 Read! And your Lord is Most Bountiful > > > > Iqra! Wa Rabbuka-al-Akram > > > > > 96:4 He who taught by the Pen > > > > Alladhi allama bil-qalam > > > > > 96:5 Taught man that which he knew not. > > > > Allam al insana ma lam ya lam. > > > > > If you read the transliterated Arabic above, you can get a feel > > > > for the rhythm and the rhyme that simply doesn’t come across in the > > > > translation. The entire Qur’an of 6,616 verses is like that. That’s > > > > why it was easy to learn for native Arabic speakers, who were used to > > > > oral traditions and story-telling. Also, the word Qur’an means > > > > ‘recital’, as it was intended to be spoken, as it was, originally, > > > > revealed to a man, The Prophet Mohammed (pbuh), who was illiterate. > > > > And no one has been able since, to create any poetry like it—not in > > > > rhythm, rhyme and depth of meaning. > > > > It dawned on me, over the weekend, that there is another analogy > > > > between ‘The Pen’, ‘The Word of God’, language and matter itself. It > > > > has been a part of Jewish, Christian and Islamic doctrine that God > > > > created the universe via His ‘Word’. But what, exactly, IS His Word? > > > > Let’s look at language and see how it relates to matter. I think > > > > sentences act like molecules. Each one has a particular purpose, > > > > structure and quality. Yet they are made of words. That makes words > > > > akin to atoms. But atoms are further divided into the sub-atomic > > > > particles of hadrons and leptons like words are comprised of letters > > > > which are either consonants or vowels. Yet even letters can be viewed > > > > as being made of lines, either straight or curved. Here is an > > > > allusion to String Theory and the concept of closed and open strings. > > > > Also, atoms (words) fall into 8 periods in the Periodic Table of > > > > Elements. These are, in a way, akin to the 8 parts of speech: nouns, > > > > verbs, pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, conjunctions, prepositions and > > > > interjections. Yet some elements fall into transitional groups. > > > > Theses would be akin to the concepts of participles and gerunds. A > > > > participle is a verb-like word that acts like an adjective, e.g., the > > > > word ‘sinking’ in the sentence: “Every time I see the film ‘Titanic’, > > > > I get a certain sinking feeling. The word ‘sinking’, although it is a > > > > verb, acts as an adjective to describe the word ‘feeling’ and is, > > > > technically, a participle. The word ‘feeling’ in that sentence, > > > > although it is a verb, acts like a noun and is, technically, a > > > > gerund. These are transitional parts of speech where one type of word > > > > acts as a different part of speech than it may appear. > > > > So, let’s map out the parts of speech to the Periodic Table based > > > > on Semitic language. Firstly, it’s easy to see that interjections > > > > stand alone and do not combine with other parts of speech; therefore, > > > > the interjection is Period 8 (The Inert or Noble gases). All Semitic > > > > languages have their root words as verbs. Verbs are conjugated, have > > > > tenses, number and person. They are the most configurable and seem > > > > the most likely to sit at Period 1, as the Period 1 atoms combine with > > > > other atoms the most. Period 2, then, would seem to be nouns. In > > > > Semitic languages, nouns are formed from their root verb stems because > > > > every action implies an actor. Also, after Period 2 are the > > > > Transitional Elements. These are the verb forms that act as either > > > > nouns (gerunds) or adjectives (participles). Following that logic, at > > > > the other end of the Transitional Elements is Period 3, which must be > > > > the adjectives. Now, we have to go back to the other end of the > > > > table. Pronouns stand for specific nouns, that is, they each have a > > > > single antecedent, a noun upon which they depend. This seems akin to > > > > the Period 7 Halogen group as they can only combine with one other > > > > atom. Period 6 has two open places for connection with ‘others’ and > > > > so seems to fit in well with the concept of a conjunction, which links > > > > two ‘other’ things together. The Period 5 group has three open places > > > > for connection and seems a best fit for the concept of the preposition > > > > which can relate one object to another either directly or indirectly > > > > or both. That leaves Period 4 as the adverbs. And each period is > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
