EYE IN THE SKY
e ye of Horus

From: e

h and f and observing and participating Listers,

You -- h and f -- two are so alike. But there is a difference, (thank God)

Conceptual judgement requires a comparison between two things, a measure of difference we term a ratio. A proportion is more complex as it requires a relation of two ratios and represents a subtler and more profound response known as an analogy.

Regarding f:

I lack adequate knowledge of classical alchemy -- my POV was to highlight the *liquid* aspect of metal as in its *energy* rather the *solid* aspect which is oftentimes assumed to be the *all-that-there-is*.
OR
If you like the spirit of the sun and the moon as opposed to the substance of the sun and the moon.

Market value is another POV altogether and would make the game a quad.

When we locate our thought within the range of manifestation, we think with four elements. Pythagoreans call this thinking a discontinuous proportion of four terms.

We symbolize this as:
a : b :: c : d

Taking some liberty,
Applying this method to Charles' 4 terms
(and I am paraphrasing his 4 links)

a(1) = perception
b(2) = subjectiveness
c(3) = movement
d(4)= objectiveness

we get

perception : subjectivity :: movement : objectivity

Now let us limit ourselves to three terms and lift ourselves to the realm of principles. By reducing the number of terms, we make this more exacting. The Greeks called this a continuous proportion of three terms

f states

Bead One - the sun - sunshine - gold metal alchemy symbol - celestial mechanics equations to connect.

Bead Two - the moon - moonshine - silver metal alchemy symbol - celestial mechanics equations to connect.

Bead Three - your POV (that is your *glass/eye/bead*) - your chi/energy - alchemical symbol for human - mechanics of mind to connect
EXAMPLE OF BLUEPRINT

You now have a triplet
or
game for three.

symbolized thusly

a : b :: b : c

It is the perceiver himself ( b ) now forming the equivalency between observed differences ( a and c) The perceiver no longer stands outside the comparative activity as in the discontinuous mode. Philosophers speak of reaching state of consciousness in which one is always aware of this attunement between the apparent external vibratory field and the inner field of perceptions.

now let

a = internal world
b = perceiver
c = external world

we get

internal world : perceiver :: perceiver : external world

It is our relationship between the inner and outer states of our being that we are actually aware of. The objective world then is interdependent with the entire physical, mental, psychological and spiritual condition of the perceiver and consequently will be altered by changes in their inward condition. We, in a sense, draw the external object out of our inner space and fuse together the contemplation of self and world. But is this the closest we can get to unity?

I believe its time for:
I agree a game of doubles is always invigorating!

A proportional division which is possible with two terms is termed the Golden Proportion or PHI. This occurs when the smaller term is to the larger term in the same way as the larger term is to the total. It is actually a three term proportion constructed from just two terms. There are two ways to symbolize this shift.

symbolized by

(1) a : b :: b : (a+ b)
In this case we let c = ( a +b)
or
(2) a : b :: b : 1
c = 1

we now have

a = internal world
b = perceiver
c = ( a + b) = internal world + perceiver

The first case

a : b :: b : (a + b)
could be called a projection, where the external world is a projection of the (internal world + the perceiver).
In this sense ( a + b ) could be greater than ONE.

The second case
a : b :: b : 1
could be called a mapping or isomorph. Where the internal world is a micro version of ONE, proportionately related and harmonized by the perceiver.

This shifting of value is typical of problems found in ancient Egyptian and Babylonian mathematical texts. I will now concern myself with this second case.

Applying reduction:

a : b :: b : 1
a/b : b/1
b**2 = a x 1
b**2 = a
b = square root of a

We now have a situation where *the root of* 'a' is equal to the root of b**2

or following our metaphor

*The root of* the internal world is equivalent to the root of our perceptual world squared

or (in my own terms)

the world is a jungle YOU simply have to let it know its place

Now, lets begin our descent, COUNTDOWN . . 4, 3, 2, 1
Anybody out there.. single? (pun intended)

if a + b = 1 and b = square root of a
then a + square root of a = 1

The only value that satisfies this equation is PHI = .6180339.....

(uh oh... (ir) rationality)

This is the ultimate reduction to the causal singularity and signifies that the perceived differences (that which we experience as an object) plus the perceiver are contained within a sustained awareness of an all- encompassing Unity. This is the goal of dynamic meditation.

Are three heads better than one? by now you know its a pun

Well, Why can't we just just divide things equally into two equal parts and just have a = a, an identity?

With equality there would be no difference, without difference there would be no perceptual universe. Or, as it says in the Upanishads,

Whether we know it or not,
all things take on their existence
from that which perceives them. or as I like to say Everything becomes what you treat it as, even if it takes a long time.

We now have the basis for a progression and extension from unity (and a way back ) or as we say in scientific terms, the basis for an evolution.

Jumping way ahead
we have a choice.
Do we follow the evolution of the objective world which takes billions and billions of years?
or
Do we follow the evolution of the subjective world which could take just one lifetime?

Now its termed the Eye of Horus

What do we 'make' of this?

h states:

In some ways, this would make very little difference, but in others --largely matters of emphasis -- it would be a profound shift, mythic and magical worldviews being the main beneficiaries. But I'm thinking out loud here, would be interested in comments.

Which side of the equation are YOU on? It seems to me that if you've made it this far, you're 'leaning' toward a subjective evolution, a quickening, an alchemy.

I'd like to think something of the sort. I'm currently looking at this particular game as a plausible introduction to GBG thinking, something that I could use in the opening chapter of a book (a) to give people the idea that they "already" play GBG like games, and (b) to give a sense of what a more developed game might look like -- and if the rest of the book could be neatly tied into the four links I proposed, that would give me a structure for a book which would also be a form for the extended game you suggest.

Since you are familiar with Jungian pschology lets use a model of perception

thinking
1
Sensation <-----+------> intuition
1
feeling

We organize our world by taking information in (sensation, intuition) then processing it (thinking , feeling). See it as an information flow from the outer to the inner:

Sensation --> feeling --> thinking --> intuition (memory)
or the opposite way around:
intuition --> thinking --> feeling --> sensation.

We double cross ourselves. Just to make sure.

The ontological chain would be:

being (reality, essence, substance) -->

representation in the intellect -->

enunciation --> written word

and vice versa.

By 'working' on your 'book', your 'book' takes on the aspects of 'working' on yourself. Model your book after yourself and 'its' constitution. To do this you must "know yourself" AS ABOVE SO BELOW. THAT is your model.

The medium is the message.
Water takes its shape from the container that holds it

I know I've gotten long winded and I'm lecturing again, please forgive me.

Take care,