Concave or convex?

[cosmiccell]

> Sal:


> Both concave and convex simultaneously, as I see it -- yeah, it's
hard to fathom this with our 3D brains.


Hi Sal,


speaking of simultaneity, God can be separate AND one with his
creation (bheda-abheda-tattva). But a specified surface of a 3D sphere
(inner or outer) canÃà‚‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚ƒÃ‚‚´t possibly be concave and convex at the same
time. At least, I believe it is not required for a consistent model
(not to say that it destroys consistency).


So, when "Life occurs within" and "all emanates from the center", the
center being the highest density... what else do we need to shift our
perspective from outward (convex) to inward (concave)?


Dare to think: What, if our very _3D EarthÃÃÂà ‚‚‚à‚´s surface_ would be concave
instead of convex? Would it be possible to prove or disprove it? Or
could we understand creation more easily from the concave viewpoint?


CC

[bitsmart]

We are both concave and convex beings. Inner space is
as vast as outer space, as the two mirror each other.
I imagine that all planets are concave and convex, and
that this is where the concept of 'Middle Earth' comes
from.

Yes, God can be seperate and one with the creation,
concave and convex, and many other paradoxical states
of being/not being simultaneously. Any rules and
limitations we've created out of distortion are
nullified when God powers are realized, thus solving
all paradox.

L&L,

Drew

--- cosmiccell <minema@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=lRf2XsQvf7619yV-Aws6kCjWAuDE277-PvcET7J4kL1wOl0uyfOn5FHwRb_8VdsjmsXDzTrlAQ)> wrote:
> speaking of simultaneity, God can be separate AND
> one with his
> creation (bheda-abheda-tattva). But a specified
> surface of a 3D sphere
> (inner or outer) canÃà‚‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚ƒÃ‚‚´t possibly be concave and
> convex at the same
> time. At least, I believe it is not required for a
> consistent model
> (not to say that it destroys consistency).
> So, when "Life occurs within" and "all emanates from
> the center", the
> center being the highest density... what else do we
> need to shift our
> perspective from outward (convex) to inward
> (concave)?

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

[darktemplarssj]

>
> Dare to think: What, if our very _3D EarthÃÃÂà ‚‚‚à‚´s surface_ would be
concave
> instead of convex? Would it be possible to prove or disprove it?
Or
> could we understand creation more easily from the concave
viewpoint?
>
>
> CC

Interesting debait, my take on it has to go with Sir Isaac Newton
He posited that for ever force there is an equal and opposite
force. I would almost bet money that this applies not only
physically but metaphysically. I vaguely remember Ra mentioning
that those laws that govern the universe, polarity and other
mysteries of existence are reproduced in all aspects of creation,
similar to indra's net where a lattice of pearls is set up in a
manner that all of the perals reflect some portion of the other
pearls, this is a fascinating analogy for "All is One"(more info at
http://fusionanomaly.net/indrasnet.html).
Anyways, the point is, I would bet that there is both a convex and
a concave reaction in any circumstance, thus a balancing. This
balancing as we are learning in my Physics class about
electromagnetics is what all of the natural forces of nature tend to
move towards. Lets take an example I thought up earlier today while
mulling over this post. A claustrophobic person is placed inside of
a small room. The box is constantly exerting an
concave/introspective effect apon the person while the person panics
and is effecting a convex or outward set of feelings. If we as a
people were to think of Earth as concave(which it might be in the
sense of n dimensional topology n being greater than 3) it would
effect all of our aspirations. I'm not sure that beyond that we can
definitively say what effects it would have, they would be many and
varigated to compensate for the eversion of the Earth.
-Dave aka DMW

[cosmiccell]

> If we as a people were to think of Earth as concave(which it might
be in the sense of n dimensional topology n being greater than 3) it
would effect all of our aspirations.


Can you imagine the Earth being concave in 3rd density? How can you
prove that it isnÃà‚‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚ƒÃ‚‚´t concave? (no joke!)


>I'm not sure that beyond that we can definitively say what effects it
would have, they would be many and varigated to compensate for the
eversion of the Earth.


First, we could regain our introspective, our inner values and our
deepest connection to the creator, whom we would find ? right in our
middle!


Second, we could perhaps unify and reconcile biology, physics,
metaphysics, religion and mythology.


CC

[cosmiccell]

> Yes, God can be seperate and one with the creation,


> concave and convex, and many other paradoxical states


> of being/not being simultaneously. Any rules and


> limitations we've created out of distortion are


> nullified when God powers are realized, thus solving


> all paradox.


I wasnÃà‚‚Â ´t talking of a paradoxical state, but of an alternative model
of densities. This model turns out to have some philosophical
implications. Suddenly, there would be a defined "core", something to
relate to in all our aspirations. "God" or "The One" right in our
middle - how does that sound to you?


CC

[subtillioN]

> How can you prove that it isnÃà‚‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚ƒÃ‚‚´t concave? (no joke!)<

Do you realize that all you have done is switch the definitions of convex
and concave? Ok so now we have different arbitrary words to use for the
same concepts. Now what?

[Vincent, Fran]

CC and All:

Fran Writes: CC, we are back to the problem of attempting to separate out
the Logos/God from us. Many writings refer to the God within us. I think
the Logos/God for the Earth is within the core, just as the Logos/God is
within the core of the Sun.

****
CC wrote: First, we could regain our introspective, our inner values and our
deepest connection to the creator, whom we would find - right in our middle!
...Second, we could perhaps unify and reconcile biology, physics,
metaphysics, religion and mythology.

CC wrote: I wasnÃà‚‚Â ´t talking of a paradoxical state, but of an alternative
model of densities. This model turns out to have some philosophical
implications. Suddenly, there would be a defined "core", something to relate
to in all our aspirations. "God" or "The One" right in our middle - how does
that sound to you?

***
Fran Writes: That core may very well be the nucleus of each atom. What
about the possiblity that our hearts are the center/nucleus of our bodies,
and contains the Logos/God within?

Love and Light to All,

Lucky Fran

This message is intended for the sole use of the individual and entity to
whom it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are
not the intended addressee, nor authorized to receive for the intended
addressee, you are hereby notified that you may not use, copy, disclose or
distribute to anyone the message or any information contained in the
message. If you have received this message in error, please immediately
advise the sender by reply email and delete the message. Thank you very
much.

[Vincent, Fran]

All:

I am sure you all have discussed the conscious unit many times. Should I
have referred to we, humans, the sub logi, and the earth and sun as
conscious units instead of as atoms?

Love and Light,

Lucky Fran

This message is intended for the sole use of the individual and entity to
whom it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are
not the intended addressee, nor authorized to receive for the intended
addressee, you are hereby notified that you may not use, copy, disclose or
distribute to anyone the message or any information contained in the
message. If you have received this message in error, please immediately
advise the sender by reply email and delete the message. Thank you very
much.

[darktemplarssj]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=PiDVUQr_1WH-DkvvFh9YTLpJElPUbk5xzS2b-gjDCC18J5ia1njEGHKmKqfNE-onVFSRviPcyjoarCo), "subtillioN" <subtillion@c...> wrote:
> > How can you prove that it isnÃà‚‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚ƒÃ‚‚´t concave? (no joke!)<
>
> Do you realize that all you have done is switch the definitions of
convex
> and concave? Ok so now we have different arbitrary words to use
for the
> same concepts. Now what?

Remember that most of our Earther 3d world is based on mneumonics.
If I say the word "concave" it has no inherent definition it is an
analog for the real meaning which is beyond words. Ideas are beyond
words but we use words to convey an outline so that the ideas may
form and crystalize in the mind of another, the key is that the idea
is still developed in the mind, it can't be given. Ideas are
continuous and complete words are discrete and finite.
So when you say "concave" its really a matter of perspective, if
you look at Einstein's works you will see many of the types of
paradoxes you have proposed. Just some thoughts to think about.
-Dave aka DMW