A True and Fully-Verifiable Meaning of "As Above, So Below"

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   
True and Fully-Verifiable Meaning of "As Above, So Below"

Even though I am called Fr. Perspicuous in some circles, it is difficult to be perspicuous about these matters. That is why YOU, the fine forumites here at ATS, will have to do your due diligence in verifying/refuting the validity of my assertions in this thread. Of course, everyone knows this stuff instinctively but few people are consciously aware of it or recognize it for what it is.

I have long had the idea that if anything can be KNOWN (in the hard sense), then it must be known to anyone and anything. As it turns out, I was correct. I began by asking myself, "What do I know?" My answer was in the form of two assertions. These two assertions are what ANYONE would answer--whether they are an attorney, a doctor, a kindergartner, a plant, a rock or even a complete abstraction--as long as they were being INTELLECTUALLY HONEST.

It just so happens that these assertions imply "As above, so below".

************************************************************​
The first assertion is this:

A subject observes itself observing itself observing itself observing itself ad infinitum.

That's obviously the short version. It represents the "below" aspect.
************************************************************​
The second assertion is this:

A subject is observed by itself being observed by itself being observed by itself being observed by itself ad infinitum.

Again, that's obviously the short version. It represents the "above" aspect.
************************************************************​

These two assertions are the result of long and tedious logical deduction by myself. There are no currently known (by "this subject"--but please argue if you can) logical fasifications available for these two assertions.

These two assertions are the only two (that "this subject" has discovered--but please add more if you can) complete, unambiguous assertions that can NOT be logically falsified except for the assertion that "There are, at least, two logically unfalsifiable assertions".

These two assertions (to the lay person) may look similar but they assert two very different things, in two different directions: "below" and "above". Please do your due diligence if you have trouble understanding this.

I would recommend beginning by using logical deduction to find these two assertions. The first one is easiest to deduce. The second is the logical consequence of the first.

This is not a thread to promote mysticism or somesuch thing. It is not a thread to dismiss mysticism or somesuch thing. This is a thinking (wo)man's thread.

This is NOT one of those enigmatic threads where people speak in allegorical terms. This is a "face-value" thread.

I am open to logical falsification.

I am open to providing strict definitions for all nouns/verbs in the assertions. I hope that this will not be necessary because that's where being perspicuous becomes very difficult but I'm open to it.

Thanks for reading and enjoy your newfound awareness of what CAN be known.




posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Can you verify that face value is a more accurate reflection than allegory?



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheConclusion
Can you verify that face value is a more accurate reflection than allegory?


This particular explaination of AASB is true and fully verifiable. To what these assertions can be applied is limitless. Even a rock, a bird, a particle of any kind, and an abstract concept would tell you these assertions if they could. And coincidentally, they are the only two assertions (though you're free to argue otherwise) that are factually true and fully verifiable in the strictest sense.

Therefore, these assertions are remarkable. And it just so happens that AASB is a simple explanation of these assertions.

This meaning of AASB can be found in all things both allegorical and face value.

It's a universal concept hence the longstanding value of AASB.
edit on 12/16/2012 by SimultaneousFinal because: typo



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by SimultaneousFinal
 

I wasn't addressing you conclusions about AASB. I was addressing your conclusion regarding the relative value of Face Value/Allegory/Metaphor when discussing this topic and thus any conclusions you will derive from that foundation.

You can't express "the experience of anger" in any manner other than allegory/metaphor... and yet that is more exactly real and independently verifiable than any "thing" which can be quantified and measured and presented at Face Value.

There is no Face Value way of discussing the experience of the observer observing itself as the observed. The experience of experiencing at all comes first and the "idea" of observer/observed comes later as Allegorical ways of discussing the experience itself. Language of any sort is the first and most important step away from Face Value and into Allegory.

I consider the point of concluding there is an observation rather than an imagination to be reaching too far if you are intending to constrain this concept to only that which can be truly verifiable and without using allegory or metaphor.
edit on 17-12-2012 by ErgoTheConclusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Or to express this another way: Consider the different paths one can follow based on the nuances between these two allegories attempting to speak at face value:

The observer observing the observed.

The imaginer imagining the imagined.

etc.

If we're to know anything true and fully-verifiable about AASB, we would first need to establish which foundation we're working from because the nature of the cycle of interaction between Above and Below is fundamentally different just between the two options above.
edit on 17-12-2012 by ErgoTheConclusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Thinking about thinking about thinking about thinking, ect. (Each level is consequentially more complicated.)

The Subject thinking about the subject thinking about the subject thinking. (Not as complicated but each level is separated by an extrinsic:intrinsic relationship.)

What's Meta about Meta? I'm almost in the mood for some Douglas Hofstadter's (G)odel, (E)scher, and (B)ach : the (E)ternal (G)olden (B)raid

It's a lot like the never ending story, every time you read it you realize just how Genius you are for realizing just how Genius Hofstadter is for realizing just how Genius these particular Germans are for realizing just how Genius Fugues are.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ErgoTheConclusion
 


You're misunderstanding.

There is a subject ("I").

There is data applied to the subject. That data could be physical sensory data, emotions, memories, whatever.

It is not verifiable that this sensory data is seperate from the subject.

Therefore, all that can be said FOR SURE is:

A subject observes ITSELF

But that realization is an observation so:

A subject observes itself observind itself.

But THAT realization is yet another observation and so on.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   



It's a lot like the never ending story, every time you read it you realize just how Genius you are for realizing just how Genius Hofstadter is for realizing just how Genius these particular Germans are for realizing just how Genius Fugues are.



You just demonstrated this perfectly.

None of the people or groups of people that you mention can be verified to be seperate from the subject. They are simply ideas applied to the subject.

All that verifiably exists is "a subject". I assume you call it "I". Data is applied to the subject but may be part of the subject itself.
edit on 12/17/2012 by SimultaneousFinal because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join