Numbers also have a qualitative ring in the elements Gabbs. Sue often gets round to saying our senses may not be as limited as we experience them. I often wonder what is being 'refined' in experience - certainly not me, me me.
On 10 May, 18:06, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > Sexism is a relatively young concept, wouldn't you agree? I don't find > it applicable in our cosmic context. No, what I mean is, can you > imagine that numbers not only signify a certain quantity but also a > certain quality? Could you agree that the Ouroborus not only looks > like a O but also incorporates itself in such a way that it renders > itself obsolete? > > On 10 Mai, 15:15, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 7 May, 18:15, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Yes, Pat, I, traditionally, is another male number, but II and III are > > > female, if you would care to check against Tarot numerology, for > > > instance. But for all our cirle friends, there is the O, too - > > > actually preceding the other ones. > > > Isn't that a bit sexist, though? 1 being masculine puts men first, > > which, I'd have thought, would be ruled out by the fact that every > > male (sans Adam, if you choose to go down that route) comes from a > > female. On the other hand, having 2 as female could equally be sexist > > in the opposite way by implying that a woman is worth 2 men. Even if > > you assume "The Fool" is Trump Zero, a fool can be male OR female, no? > > > > On 7 Mai, 18:21, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 7 May, 16:51, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Pat, I have a question! Are you a member @gravity.com. I have opened > > > > > up a can of worms there and I think you would be interested in > > > > > participating as it involves your life's work. Here's the > > > > > link;http://www.gravity.com/Science/7660/numbers-are-male#32319 > > > > > Cheers, mate. I'm not a member of 'Gravity', although I due submit to > > > > its force on a daily basis. ;-) > > > > > I read the 'allusion' to me and my theory, but I'm still unsure as to > > > > exactly what 'can of worms' you've opened. Unless it's the lack of > > > > falsifiability of my theory, which I admit, but is purely down to the > > > > fact that it's an inherited lack of falsifiability that is inherent in > > > > all string theories due to the sizes of the proposed entities and the > > > > fact that the extra dimensions are, by definition, not accessible from > > > > these dimensions. Could you elaborate on the can of worms so that I > > > > can add any input, please? > > > > > {pause for a moment's thought} > > > > > If the 'can of worms' is the concept of gender associated with > > > > numbers, then, I'm afraid I would disagree. Numbers are abstracts > > > > that have no inherent gender and are all, in my opinion, derivable > > > > from the concept of '1'. For example, God's Oneness. God, being One, > > > > reflected on His being. That self-reflection created two: the one > > > > looking and the one being looked at. Then God reflected on that and > > > > there were three: the one looking, the one being looked at and the one > > > > looking at those two. Then God saw those three and there were four > > > > and so on ad infinitum. This simple process of self-reflection by the > > > > One, who is conscious, can (and DID) result in an infinite series that > > > > serves as the basis of our 'set of integers'. > > > > Of course, that has nothing to do with the others' statements that, in > > > > some human languages, numbers have gender. Or that, in some human > > > > languages, the gender of an adjectival number must agree with the > > > > gender of the noun it is associated with (e.g., the phrase "one man" > > > > demands that both 'one and 'man' both be masculine, whereas the phrase > > > > "one woman" demands that both 'one' and 'woman' be feminine). This is > > > > just a part of human language and says more about human nature and the > > > > development of language than it says about the nature of numbers. > > > > If you like, you can paste this as my contribution to the argument. > > > > But I would personally disagree that abstract numbers have any gender > > > > in and of themselves. If our language reflects they do, then that is > > > > more to do with language and our expression of numbers than the true > > > > nature of numbers, as, in my opinion (stated above), numbers are a > > > > result of God's own recognition of Himself in a sequence of self- > > > > reflection. > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > Pat > > > > > > On May 7, 11:09 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 7 May, 15:53, RP <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > God is the mind which concieves the universe , He is the mind > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > runs it, and He is the mind which destroys it. He does not see in > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > manner in which we see each other and He does not act in the > > > > > > > manner in > > > > > > > which we act. His awareness and action is transcendental in > > > > > > > nature. In > > > > > > > our vanity we may pretend to comprehend Him, but we do not see or > > > > > > > accept the fact that our intelligence is not infinite but only a > > > > > > > few > > > > > > > grades above that of animals. We have to just look at animals to > > > > > > > realise that , after all our understanding also is finite. We are > > > > > > > learning and growing day by day , but we are far from being > > > > > > > Supreme. > > > > > > > Well, He does see as we do, but He also sees in a way we do not. > > > > > > When > > > > > > you look at something, in reality, it is Him that is seeing (and > > > > > > hearing and every other sensation any of us sense). And His ability > > > > > > to multiprocess all our awarenesses (and the awareness of all living > > > > > > things!) is a part of what defines His transcendant abilities. But > > > > > > there are more (unseen) places than just this 4-D universe and His > > > > > > wareness includes all that, as well. You're also right about our > > > > > > level of consciousness being not that much above other animals. It > > > > > > is > > > > > > our conceit that leads us to believe we are far greater than they > > > > > > are. But we're not. God can think like a tree (and, in fact thinks > > > > > > like each tree, as each tree's awareness is, in fact, His), yet no > > > > > > animal can. I'm not sure that God's understanding is infinite, but > > > > > > it > > > > > > is comprehensive, that is, it covers everything, though there may > > > > > > be a > > > > > > limit, that limit is far beyond our comprehension.- Hide quoted > > > > > > text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -
