. Are you any closer?

[tAlc]

Fair enough.



No-Thing is not a dual composite function, but an attribute used for linguistic convenience, given the obvious limitations of language.

Meaning:

1. "No-Thing" is used to convey that "it" is not a "thing".

2. "No-Thing" is also used to differentiate "it" from the absurd notion of "Nothing", the latter having no implicit or explicit reality, except maybe for "small talk". Literally, the is NO "Nothing".

I think I see what you're saying here. You're saying that ''No'' is literally ''Nothing'' not No-Thing but ''Nothing'', got ya.

''Thing'' is the ''Only'' reality. ''No'' is literally ''Nothing''.

Maybe you should re-read the Emerald Tablet. All "from" & "by" One Thing, by Adaptation.

''The father thereof is the Sun, the mother the Moon'' - Emerald Tablet

The Father and Mother of the One Thing.
Two parents as the cause for this One Thing forming through its adaptation.

Why does only One Thing have Two parents?

''And as all things were by contemplation of one, so all things arose from this one thing by a single act of adaptation.'' - Emerald Tablet

Adapting to what?
Any change of state, I'm thinking, is be cause of its dual or multiplicite composition. Infinity can be counted but without end, and Infinity is what this Thing is composed of, meaning ''Thing'' is composed of ''not just one'', would you agree?

One Thing in Alchemy, has a multiplicite composition, think of One Matter, and in One Matter as SOMEONE has mentioned in the past, has multiple things in its composition that ultimately FORM the One Thing. There was a tree branch example mentioned, how a tree branch is one thing, but in its composition, there are multiple things that make up One.

Think INFINITY, there's Infinite Expressions, but all of these can be reduced to number, and the first number can be reduced again to No-Thing and 1 and Infinity being born, think Emerald Tablet having its Father and Mother, through Adaptation, Think Passenger and Carrier, Subtle and Gross, the seemingly mirrored reflections of Two.

(By the way, this is the Emerald Tablet, so if you feel for a second that I might be data mining or trying to be ''sneaky'' or trying to get ''inside knowledge'' in any way here, do NOT reply or give me your viewpoints I do NOT need them, I am genuinely interested to see if my perspective is ''wrong'' here, I am sincerely investigating some things right now, which includes looking into Walter Russel and his supposed ''Absolute +'')

Don't feel like you gotta respond to this.

 

[Andro]

I think I see what you're saying here. You're saying that ''No'' is literally ''Nothing'' not No-Thing but ''Nothing'', got ya.

''Thing'' is the ''Only'' reality. ''No'' is literally ''Nothing''.

Pretty much so. Except the so-called "One Thing" - it ain't no "thing". Hence "No-Thing".

Why does only One Thing have Two parents?

"It" doesn't "have" any "parents".

The "parents" referred to are different manifestations of the same Nature, required to express "it" within manifest duality.

Dinner time.

 

[Awani]

This "no-thing" is essentially "everything" and nothing else, in your view?

 

[Michael Sternbach]

There is infinity, i.e., the infinitely big. And then there is, in reverse, the infinitely small, i.e., zero.

This is the nothing whence everything originates. It is void, yet it contains the potential for being. In an important sense, it is identically God.

 

[tAlc]

I've seen this common argument that seems to stalemate themselves each and every time in some other occult communites.

One argument is the argument Andro is presenting.

The other argument is the one I'm presenting.

All ''By'' and ''From'' ''No-Thing'' i.e from the ALREADY Form-Less One, Thing that is not a Thing, Form-Less One (No-Thing) albeit it goes through changes of states hence 1 >> | 1 <<, is what Andro is seeming from what I understand to be presenting.

Mine is, All ''By'' and ''From'' ''One Thing'', through adaptation of Two hence ''No''-''Thing'' ''Mother'' and ''Father'' or in a SFW way of saying, ''Fertilization for the Seed'' (form and no form, No-Thing, the Yes and the No, Thing and No, Male and Female, One Hermaphroditical Dual-Composite Thing), having a multiplicite composition capable of Infinity, whether or not its origins are 2 or more, but NOT a just a Singular, but two OR more Singulars that make up ONE Composition again, capable of infinity.

EDIT x2: For me I still am under the conception that this Formless One is born from a Dual relationship of some kind, the sole cause for its mirrored expressions of itself that are echoed everywhere.

 

[Andro]

This "no-thing" is essentially "everything" and nothing else, in your view?

Yep.

 

[Michael Sternbach]

In the original state, all forces are potentially there, but they cancel each other out. As Nothing splits into the positive and negative, manifestation begins.

The Thot Tarot card The Fool illustrates this nicely. Note the entangled two children on the bottom of the chart, facing opposite directions.

​

Daoism teaches essentially the same. It calls the original "no-state" wu chi and symbolizes it by an empty circle. This is being divided into yin and yang, the negative and the positive, which together form tai chi - the beginning of manifestation.

 

[tAlc]

In the original state, all forces are potentially there, but they cancel each other out. As Nothing splits into the positive and negative, manifestation begins.

The Thot Tarot card The Fool illustrates this nicely. Note the entangled two children on the bottom of the chart, facing opposite directions.

​

Daoism teaches essentially the same. It calls the original "no-state" wu chi and symbolizes it by an empty circle. This is being divided into yin and yang, the negative and the positive, which together form tai chi - the beginning of manifestation.

I like what Andro is presenting. I like what you presented here as well.

Andro says ''Positive'' exists. He says ''Negative'' does not exist.

What is 'there' if it's in the Negative side of Reality OR ''Thing'' or ''Life'' (call it what you will)? It is contrary to Existence, not suitable for any thing to inhabit as it is unreachable... This is of course not my view, but the one Andro seems to be making.

How might you say the ''Negative'' can exist with the the ''Positive''' in this case?

 

[Andro]

There is infinity, i.e., the infinitely big. And then there is, in reverse, the infinitely small, i.e., zero.

There is no "small" infinity or "big" infinity. Infinity is infinity. And there's no mathematical "Zero" in it...

The mathematical Zero is a notion with no sub-stance or base in any reality, but it is used as an arbitrary reference, for convenience in theoretical models & scenarios.

The metaphysical Zero is like a "Point", i.e. "Zero Point". It is not in any shape or form the mathematical Zero, in fact it "has" no "shape" or "form", for that matter. Although it "has" no "matter", either

It is more akin to the "Zero Point" or the "thing that ain't no thing", which is dimensionless, devoid of Cartesian "coordinates" and utterly incommesnsurable.

This is the nothing whence everything originates.

No-Thing... There is no "Nothing"

It is void, yet it contains the potential for being.

Hence the term "Pregnant Void".

In an important sense, it is identically God.

As much as I'm not particularly fond of this noun, essentially, ultimately, yes.

 

[Andro]

Andro says ''Positive'' exists. He says ''Negative'' does not exist.

I use "positive" in the metaphysical sense, not the sub-stance-less mathematical one.

It means "that" which "has" no Negative/Alternative/Relative/Counter-Informative/etc...

 

[Andro]

As Nothing splits into the positive and negative, manifestation begins.

If it's Nothing, there's nothing to "split". You must surely mean No-Thing

I wouldn't use mathematical terms in the metaphysical field. Manifestation emerges dually from the Zero Point, which we can also call "the mirror plane".

I.e. Above & Below, Left & Right, conscious & subconscious (or unconscious).

Are the roots of a tree (below ground) the "negative" of its stem & crown?

[FONT=&quot]☀[/FONT][FONT=&quot]⇠[/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]|[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]⇢[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]☀[/FONT]

 

[microwatt]

i think the truth is that putting opposite energies in a salt matrix will yield a stone. Its not just stuffing SM into a salt and hoping it goes black.

 

[tAlc]

If it's Nothing, there's nothing to "split". You must surely mean No-Thing

I wouldn't use mathematical terms in the metaphysical field. Manifestation emerges dually from the Zero Point, which we can also call "the mirror plane".

I.e. Above & Below, Left & Right, conscious & subconscious (or unconscious).

Are the roots of a tree (below ground) the "negative" of its stem & crown?

[FONT=&quot]☀[/FONT][FONT=&quot]⇠[/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]|[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]⇢[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]☀[/FONT]

I find it hard to conceive that Awareness can become Aware of Everything if Awareness what you seem to be suggesting is Self is merely just ''Awareness'' or ''Sight'' alone. There is a sense of Peace when experiencing No-Mind. This peace, in my experience, can augment in my experience.

When one is just Being, there isn't any ''collection'' or ''retaining'' of thoughts and memories, feelings, none of that... Yet what is seemingly being suggested is that pure Awareness contains all within itself alone, but the nature of Awareness that I have experienced, does not ''retain'', does not ''care'', so why does it ''have'', Awareness is what some people say, is before Anything, before Creation, so the nature of Awareness is not to ''Have'' it doesn't concern, it just Is , alongside its ''apparent'' counterpart, in theory.

Look at the nature of Man and Woman. And compare it with No-Thing with me for a moment.

Man needs to impregnate the Woman before the Human Being is made. This human being shares both mother and father characteristics. Well, No-Thing before it just Is, had its origin, and then expresses itself through what you call ''Oppo-sames'', from the characteristics of its Two origins, like a child resembling its parents.

EDIT: I've revised my post. Take another look if you will.

Now... back to Walter Russell and his The Universal One book...

 

[Michael Sternbach]

I like what Andro is presenting. I like what you presented here as well.

Andro says ''Positive'' exists. He says ''Negative'' does not exist.

What is 'there' if it's in the Negative side of Reality OR ''Thing'' or ''Life'' (call it what you will)? It is contrary to Existence, not suitable for any thing to inhabit as it is unreachable... This is of course not my view, but the one Andro seems to be making.

How might you say the ''Negative'' can exist with the the ''Positive''' in this case?

tAlchemist,

Obviously, the term "the negative side of reality" could be used in a number of different ways. Generally, I would think of it as referring to some kind of reversed or inverted process or thing.

For giving you an example, besides negative energy, mass, and time, there is something called negative space or counterspace. Anthroposophical mathematicians already explored this topic in depth and wrote numerous books and articles about it.

In brief, while the physical forces that we are so familiar with characteristically emanate from point-like centres, the forces associated with the counterspace act inwards from the periphery (which is indeed "unreachable" as such - as it is located in infinity). Accordingly, their effects are inverted, e.g., levitation instead of gravitation.

They are also attributed with the creation of form, i.e., they are etheric building forces. Which doesn't really sound like they were "contrary to existence", does it?

 

[tAlc]

Yes I see what you're saying. Sorry I wasn't trying to correct you or anything I was just genuinely interested in your perspective and passionatly asked the question in this good mood of mine.

I wonder what Black thinks about this No-Thing. Is it Two combined into One, or is it One while just happening to have different changes of states and what some have called ''oppo-sames''.

 

[Michael Sternbach]

There is no "small" infinity or "big" infinity. Infinity is infinity. And there's no mathematical "Zero" in it...

Au contraire, Monsieur Andro! Infinity extends all the way from the infinitely small (meaning any arbitrary point at all) to the infinitely big. The former is dimensionless, thus it naturally corresponds with the mathematical zero - or one divided by infinity.

The mathematical Zero is a notion with no sub-stance or base in any reality, but it is used as an arbitrary reference, for convenience in theoretical models & scenarios.

As seen from the Pythagorean/Platonic perspective that I uphold, numbers (including zero, and even negative numbers) are anything but human inventions! Rather, they are primordial archetypes or "Urideen" of the most basic kind - discovered rather than invented.

Historically speaking, our "zero" came from India, where it was called shunya - which means "void" in the same sense that Buddhists employ this term.

The metaphysical Zero is like a "Point", i.e. "Zero Point". It is not in any shape or form the mathematical Zero, in fact it "has" no "shape" or "form", for that matter. Although it "has" no "matter", either

It is more akin to the "Zero Point" or the "thing that ain't no thing", which is dimensionless, devoid of Cartesian "coordinates" and utterly incommesnsurable.

I agree - up to a point. My main issue with the view you present is that it considers numbers (ar least as the mathematical units as which we know them) human inventions. Whereas to me they are the subject of Occult Number Lore and Kabbalah.

In other words, there is no division into "mathematical" and "metaphysical" numbers in my book. Rather, numbers are, let's say, "metamatical" by their very nature.

No-Thing... There is no "Nothing"

Same thing!

 

[Michael Sternbach]

Yes I see what you're saying. Sorry I wasn't trying to correct you or anything I was just genuinely interested in your perspective and passionatly asked the question in this good mood of mine.

It's all good!

I am glad when people give what I am sharing some thought and come back with questions.

I hope I was able to clarify what my perspective would be (to some degree). Be free to ask more questions otherwise!

 

[Michael Sternbach]

If it's Nothing, there's nothing to "split". You must surely mean No-Thing

This "nothing" kind of naturally splits itself, since it is the result of mutual cancellation of opposing forces to begin with.

The rest is a question of semantics.

I wouldn't use mathematical terms in the metaphysical field.

Well... I would! I sometimes playfully refer to this as metamathematics.

Manifestation emerges dually from the Zero Point, which we can also call "the mirror plane".

Yes, even though, strictly speaking, it's not a plane.

I.e. Above & Below, Left & Right, conscious & subconscious (or unconscious).

Are the roots of a tree (below ground) the "negative" of its stem & crown?

Indeed.

​

 

[Michael Sternbach]

i think the truth is that putting opposite energies in a salt matrix will yield a stone. Its not just stuffing SM into a salt and hoping it goes black.

Essentially it's an androgynous Mercury that will unite energies of opposite gender.

 

[Andro]

I would continue elaborating, but it's pointless, pun intended.

I'm also realizing that "debating" or "arguing" a topic (beyond a certain point up to which refinement can still occur in the sense of "diminishing returns" and the barricades are still not fully erected/displayed) is also rather not aligned with my personal views, which are that no one can ever be "wrong", just like my view on "negatives".

It's all just a continuum of infinite degrees of "right". One can be "less right" or "more right", but never really "wrong".

So, in the immortal words of Kelly Bundy: The prostitution rests.

Good night/good morning.

[FONT=&quot]Slàinte Mhath, Mo Leannan Bòidheach![/FONT]

 

[microwatt]

why is it so hard? all it is is just a recipe. even isaac newton with all of his intellect couldn't figure it out.

 

[Seth-Ra]

why is it so hard? all it is is just a recipe. even isaac newton with all of his intellect couldn't figure it out.

That's why he couldn't figure it out.
It's not just a recipe. It's a realization.
That's why recipes and texts can differ, but agree, and those that blindly parrot them, fail repeatedly.

 

[Dendritic Xylem]

why is it so hard? all it is is just a recipe.

It's called The Great Art for a reason. Not everyone can create a Mona Lisa from written instructions.

 

[microwatt]

its insane. even if you know how to make the mercury, there are no instructions on how to apply it to the 1st matter. no instructions on how much heat etc. just a big maze with one side thinking its urine and the other stibnite.

 

[Seth-Ra]

its insane. even if you know how to make the mercury, there are no instructions on how to apply it to the 1st matter. no instructions on how much heat etc. just a big maze with one side thinking its urine and the other stibnite.

If one understands the principles, then it's easy to deduce, especially with some practice and testing.
Many texts give various measurements as well, for amounts/ratios, temperatures, etc so one can always use their favorite as a starting point and see what happens.

Anyone that has a desire to pursue the Royal Art, had best enjoy puzzles, riddles, and experimentation. Otherwise they are in a for a bad time.


~Seth-Ra